Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Sun, 06 May 2007 20:36:43 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0605072036430001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <gr0t33di532qj9d81graj789t1uaakfset@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> 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. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Yes, the distance from the earth to the sun changes but as you know, the >change in distance is not enough to cause any major problems. So the "exact" difference is pretty wide. But you have just discovered the "amazing" result that the conditions on Earth are hospitable to life on Earth. You discovered the "amazing" result that it is not true that conditions have killed all life on Earth. Now let me explain to you something that might actually amaze you: this argues against g(G)od(s), not for them. Suppose there are those gods out there: they could enable us to survive conditions inhospitable. They could allow us to live even though the planet froze or boiled or something. That we have natural conditions that allow life is unmiraculous. > I once read >an article indicating that life on earth would come to an end if a huge >asteroid (about the size of the moon) hit the earth and caused the earth >to be in an orbit that was vastly different than it now is. For example, >life does not exist on the planets that are nearest earth and there is not >even life on the moon. So? >There is a term that I heard or read in a ICR publication several years >ago. The term is "spark of life". It simply means that you could have all >of the materials that were needed to produce life. However, in order for >life to be created from that material (eg amino acids and other >materials), the spark of life is needed. Spark of life is a nice poetic term, it is too bad that hundreds of years of research has not shown any such thing exists. Look up the story of the synthesis of urea: until then people were sure that it required life to make such things. >Christians believe God was the >source of the spark of life that caused life to be produced. Of course, >evolutionists believed that natural forces were involved. Find me some life that works despite the natural conditions that prevent it. >I once saw a >film produced by evolutionists that showed lighting strikes hitting the >primordial soup. I doubt that they still show that stupid movie to high >school biology students. I doubt you ever saw such a film. >The evolutionists control the peer review process. That's the reason >Christian Science Professors rarely ever waste their time writing articles >that would never be published. Nor do they do any research. And look up what "Christian Science" means. You should stop writing about things you know nothing about. >Believe it or not, the advocates of creation science accept any aspects of >evolution that can be proven. That is, they accept everything they can't run away from or deny. >The main area of diagreement is in relation >to how life and the species came to be on this planet. What is "the" species? But are you saying that you accept common descent? -- 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" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 In article <gr0t33di532qj9d81graj789t1uaakfset@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, the distance from the earth to the sun changes but as you know, the change in distance is not enough to cause any major problems. I once read an article indicating that life on earth would come to an end if a huge asteroid (about the size of the moon) hit the earth and caused the earth to be in an orbit that was vastly different than it now is. For example, life does not exist on the planets that are nearest earth and there is not even life on the moon. There is a term that I heard or read in a ICR publication several years ago. The term is "spark of life". It simply means that you could have all of the materials that were needed to produce life. However, in order for life to be created from that material (eg amino acids and other materials), the spark of life is needed. Christians believe God was the source of the spark of life that caused life to be produced. Of course, evolutionists believed that natural forces were involved. I once saw a film produced by evolutionists that showed lighting strikes hitting the primordial soup. I doubt that they still show that stupid movie to high school biology students. The evolutionists control the peer review process. That's the reason Christian Science Professors rarely ever waste their time writing articles that would never be published. Believe it or not, the advocates of creation science accept any aspects of evolution that can be proven. The main area of diagreement is in relation to how life and the species came to be on this planet. jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 11:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > There is a term that I heard or read in a ICR publication several years > ago. The term is "spark of life". It simply means that you could have all > of the materials that were needed to produce life. However, in order for > life to be created from that material (eg amino acids and other > materials), the spark of life is needed. Christians believe God was the > source of the spark of life that caused life to be produced. But they are obviously wrong because God doesn't exist. > Of course, > evolutionists believed that natural forces were involved. "Natural" being an adjective used to describe things which actually exist. > I once saw a > film produced by evolutionists that showed lighting strikes hitting the > primordial soup. I doubt that they still show that stupid movie to high > school biology students. I'm sure you saw much more convincing movies on creation in your Sunday school class. Seriously though, do you think that God reached down and placed a finger in the ocean and that's where the "spark of life" came from? > The evolutionists control the peer review process. That's the reason > Christian Science Professors rarely ever waste their time writing articles > that would never be published. Scientists will publish science. If somebody wants to publish mythology then there are religious journals they can publish to. > Believe it or not, the advocates of creation science accept any aspects of > evolution that can be proven. The main area of diagreement is in relation > to how life and the species came to be on this planet. And yet the question of how life originally came to be has nothing to do with evolution. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. A virus is alive. Bacteria is alive. Animals are alive. Who, besides creationists, says life evolved from non-life? Don't forget that the Bible says that man was created from dust. No scientist believes that crap. > I believe that God created the earth and created > Adam, Eve, lots of animals and lots of plants. That is a matter of faith. It must be because of faith because there is no evidence that your good ever existed. > God even made sure that the > Earth was the exact distance from the sun so that people, plants and > animals could live their lives. Please. There are billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and no doubt several planets per star. Why would your god only create life on Earth. We know that most planets in the universe are incapable of supporting life. > 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. Yes, you do. > 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. If you type "fossils" into any search engine you would find evidence supporting evolution. I would encourage anyone to do this and see that you are a liar. Martin Quote
Guest Dave Oldridge Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0605071217590001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > 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. I have visited that site numerous times over the years. It is riddled with lies. > 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" Von Daniken took every little oddity he could dig up and bent, fold, spindled and mutilated it into some kind of support for his "theory." This is NOT how science is done. > 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 We don't know how life got started. Neither do you. Evolution is not about how life got started. It's about how it got to be so diverse. > 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 And neither do you. Though I have some clues that you're probably not aware of. > came to be from nothing, I challenge you to prove it. Some scientists Life came from non-life. How? I don't know. Neither do you. But the fact is that we KNOW from observation that the universe was once so hostile to life that it could not have existed. We also know that the earth was once similarly hostile to life. So we can conclude deductively that life has a beginning, both in the universe at large and on the earth. > 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 When was this? 1759? It was certainly prior to Louis Pasteur, who showed that these flies come from eggs laid in the meat which hatch into maggots that eat the meat and then turn into flies. > 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. You went to a big build-up of total garbage only to end with a bald assertion that you have not supplied an iota of support for. > 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. No we don't. You don't have a clue. I do. > 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 Actually a number of biochemists around the world are very busy trying to figure it out. Right now the problem is that there are way too many hypotheses and not enough sorting of them to come to any hard conclusion yet. > 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. Hmmmph! It can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that chimps and humans share a common genetic ancestor. Do you accept that? Or is the only thing you accept a pack of lies about evolution told by a devotee of the father of lies disguised as a Christian? -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Quote
Guest Dave Oldridge Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0605071409080001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > 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 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 3:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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" It's all bunk. Ancient records from Sumer and China make no record of people coming from the stars. Instead they make it quite clear that most, if not all, of their gods were based on real people, mostly kings, queens, emperors and generals, who came to be diefied late in life and after death. There's no evidence -zero- of a race of superbeings coming from the stars. Martin Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:kk5r33pnk1ang1so8tglhethhltmrk72q2@4ax.com... > 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. > I know far more about science than you think you do, Pal! > -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 > What is "the" species? But are you saying that you accept common > descent? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No, they don't accept common descent. I meant that God created Adam, Eve, lots of plants and lots of animals. They believe those creatures on that famous chart that starts with a creature that looks like a monkey and ends with a modern man are NOT the way it happened. Some of those creatures are monkeys or apes. The others (eg Neanderthal Man) were humans that had bone diseases such as rickets. I actually saw a story in the newspaper several days ago indicating that scientists had found proof that Cro-Magnons and Neaderthals mated and produced children. That story did not shock me but I bet it shocked lots of evolutionists. I read one story in a ICR publication indicating that the artist that drew that famous chart should have covered the monkeys and apes with lots of hair so they would have resembled modern day great apes and monkeys. That artist should have left body hair off of the Neanderthal. The artist was an evolutionist or was taking orders from a evolutionist. The end goal of the chart was to convince people and young students that common descent made perfect sense. If your theories were true, that means that life should have evolved on the moon and on Mars. Perhaps our well equipped astranauts could live on the Moon or on Mars but it would be impossible for mass numbers of people to live on the moon or on mars. Many Christians believe that God was responsible for making sure the Earth was the perfect distance from the sun and that the orbit would not cause any great harm to the people or life forms on earth. Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 "Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:cplr33tcm7jmh65ssac5rohh1ijo6bich6@4ax.com... > 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? > There is only a few things that raises the ire of people as much as a criticism or an attack upon their religion. One of these thing is evolution. It raises the same ire and antaganism among the faithful to the same degree as any religion. > Especially when it has > nothing to do with atheism or vice versa? > So, I never thought otherwise. > > 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. > How many evolutionist actually attempted to address his many points in his post? The overwhelming majority addressed it by calling him a moron, stupid idiot, brainwashed, liar, self imposed ignorance etc. etc. > > 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? > Thanks for making my point. > > And are their personal lies about us, to us going to convince us that > anything they have to say will be true? > What lies?? Everything I said is absolutily true. You have proved it abundantly. > > >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. > So rather than address the issues raised, just go for the personal attacks, and character assassination. Haskell > > >>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 > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >> Quote
Guest johac Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 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? I would like to see that too, but I'm not holding my breath. > > Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns > the Theory of Evolution? They have none other than 'goddidit.' > > Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support? That's what they are all about. > > Budikka -- John #1782 "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order. Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 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. > Here's another one: a super-nuclear intergallactic donkey farted the entire Universe and a few others out of his ass after eating a rotten burrito. In his awesome power, of course. Yeah, and authority. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest bobcrowley@dodo.com.au Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 3:53 pm, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote: > 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. > > Here's another one: a super-nuclear intergallactic donkey farted the entire > Universe and a few others out of his ass after eating a rotten burrito. > In his awesome power, of course. Yeah, and authority. > > -- > Come down off the cross > We can use the wood > > Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House One can always depend on vituperative from Charles and Mambo Duckman. Nothing else though. Just verbal crap. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On 6 May 2007 17:08:27 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote: - Refer: <1178496507.043875.136450@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> >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 It doesn't bleedin' well exist, that's why! -- Quote
Guest Budikka666 Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 1:43 am, bobcrow...@dodo.com.au wrote: > On May 7, 3:53 pm, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Here's another one: a super-nuclear intergallactic donkey farted the entire > > Universe and a few others out of his ass after eating a rotten burrito. > > In his awesome power, of course. Yeah, and authority. > > > -- > > Come down off the cross > > We can use the wood > > > Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House > > One can always depend on vituperative from Charles and Mambo Duckman. > > Nothing else though. > > Just verbal crap. You'd be the hands-down expert there. Budikka Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 1:22 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > How many evolutionist actually attempted to address his many > points in his post? The overwhelming majority addressed it by > calling him a moron, stupid idiot, brainwashed, liar, > self imposed ignorance etc. etc. That's not true. Christopher Lee is an idiotic bigot who in no way represents atheists as a whole. The vast majority of posters on alt.atheism are currently making genuine efforts to get through to people, to educate them. And this is the thanks we get?! Martin Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1178535417.543234.259080@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On May 7, 1:22 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > How many evolutionist actually attempted to address his many > > points in his post? The overwhelming majority addressed it by > > calling him a moron, stupid idiot, brainwashed, liar, > > self imposed ignorance etc. etc. > > That's not true. Christopher Lee is an idiotic bigot who in no way > represents atheists as a whole. The vast majority of posters on > alt.atheism are currently making genuine efforts to get through to > people, to educate them. And this is the thanks we get?! > Lee isn't the _only_ one. Check the responses for yourself. > > Martin > Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Mon, 7 May 2007 07:02:33 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote: >"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1178535417.543234.259080@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> On May 7, 1:22 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> > How many evolutionist actually attempted to address his many >> > points in his post? The overwhelming majority addressed it by >> > calling him a moron, stupid idiot, brainwashed, liar, >> > self imposed ignorance etc. etc. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". That is a dishonest fabrication by creationists to pretend that reality is an -ism in competition with their own. >> That's not true. Christopher Lee is an idiotic bigot who in no way >> represents atheists as a whole. The vast majority of posters on >> alt.atheism are currently making genuine efforts to get through to >> people, to educate them. And this is the thanks we get?! The thread has nothing to do with atheism. It was in-your-face, stupid and rude. It takes a brainwashed moron to imagine evolution has anything to do with atheism or vice versa. If it belonged anywhere it was in talk.origins where non-fundy believers who work in or study that area, would educate him and he might listen. The fact that he didn't post it there speaks volumes. >Lee isn't the _only_ one. Check the responses for yourself. You and Phipps are both lying through your teeth. When you do that it gets just as personal as when the in-your-face theists do it. I am hardly bigoted - I just don't put up with question-begging stupidity, believers lecturing us what our POV "really" is, etc. Which includes believers rudely and stupidly talking at us as though their beliefs reflected reality. Which demonstrates that they aren't interested in communication but they're going to do it anyway. Because that would have to be from common shared understanding, about something we are both interested in. We're not interested in what their religious beliefs are. If we were we'd go to the newsgroups where those are the subject. And all we've got in common is that they believe something we don't. I am in alt.atheism to discuss atheist issues with other theists. But this is rendered impossible by the noise from believers who can't live and let live. >> Martin >> > Quote
Guest Vlad the accountant Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On 6 May, 20:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178445584.494705.53...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Budikka666 <budik...@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. > > ... > > read more Quote
Guest Ash Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > On May 7, 3:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> 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" > > It's all bunk. Ancient records from Sumer and China make no record of > people coming from the stars. Instead they make it quite clear that > most, if not all, of their gods were based on real people, mostly > kings, queens, emperors and generals, who came to be diefied late in > life and after death. There's no evidence -zero- of a race of > superbeings coming from the stars. > > Martin > WEll, the totally different DNA in those plant species and their inability ot be related to any of the other species on earth should be a big help Quote
Guest John Baker Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Sun, 6 May 2007 11:47:20 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@ncoldns.com> wrote: >[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. OK, so we're fed up with clueless idiots who insist on telling us why they're right and 99% of the scientists in the world are wrong. <G> But seriously, having a degree doesn't make you a scientist. Doing science does. That small percentage who've sold themselves to some bogus "cause" or other have, in my opinion, given up the right to be called scientists. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Mon, 7 May 2007 01:22:10 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:cplr33tcm7jmh65ssac5rohh1ijo6bich6@4ax.com... >> 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? >> >There is only a few things that raises the ire of people as >much as a criticism or an attack upon their religion. One of these >thing is evolution. It raises the same ire and antaganism among >the faithful to the same degree as any religion. Evolution isn't a religion, Haskell. It's an observed, documented fact. Evolution happens, and all the denial creationists can muster won't change that. Now, if you want to debate the validity of the theory that explains the mechanisms behind the fact, that's fine. We'll be happy to accomodate you. But you'd better know what you're talking about before you try. >> > Especially when it has >> nothing to do with atheism or vice versa? >> >So, I never thought otherwise. >> >> 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. >> >How many evolutionist actually attempted to address his many >points in his post? The overwhelming majority addressed it by >calling him a moron, stupid idiot, brainwashed, liar, >self imposed ignorance etc. etc. When you see the same old, tired, thoroughly refuted "argument" tossed out for the thousandth time, it's pretty hard to be patient. Especially the "thermodynamics argument", which has been refuted so often and so completely that even the most clueless creationist should know better than to try it again. When people don't make even a token effort to check their facts before they spout off, screw patience. >> >> 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? >> >Thanks for making my point. >> >> And are their personal lies about us, to us going to convince us that >> anything they have to say will be true? >> >What lies?? Everything I said is absolutily true. You have proved >it abundantly. >> >> >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. >> >So rather than address the issues raised, just go for the >personal attacks, and character assassination. > >Haskell >> >> >>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 >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:12:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0605072212020001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: Please learn to quote properly. You method is incoherent and potentially misleading and dishonest. > >> What is "the" species? But are you saying that you accept common >> descent? > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >No, they don't accept common descent. Then creationists don't accept the parts of evolution that can be "proven". Common Descent is as well supported a grand fact as exists in science. > I meant that God created Adam, Eve, >lots of plants and lots of animals. Lots but not all? >They believe those creatures on that >famous chart that starts with a creature that looks like a monkey and ends >with a modern man are NOT the way it happened. So creationists actually reject evolution. The claim that they accept some of it is a dishonest bit of propaganda. What is your reason and evidence for rejecting common descent? >Some of those creatures are >monkeys or apes. The others (eg Neanderthal Man) were humans that had bone >diseases such as rickets. The idea that Neanderthal had rickets was nonsense from the beginning and has been nonsense ever since. Neanderthal bones are thicker and stronger than modern human bones, they look like the opposite of rickets. You have been deceived. >I actually saw a story in the newspaper several >days ago indicating that scientists had found proof that Cro-Magnons and >Neaderthals mated and produced children. That story did not shock me but I >bet it shocked lots of evolutionists. You would lose the bet. And this does not refute common descent at all. In fact this is what we expect from an understanding of evolution. You might also try to understand that there are lots of organisms on Earth that are not humans. >I read one story in a ICR >publication indicating that the artist that drew that famous chart should >have covered the monkeys and apes with lots of hair so they would have >resembled modern day great apes and monkeys. That artist should have left >body hair off of the Neanderthal. The artist was an evolutionist or was >taking orders from a evolutionist. The end goal of the chart was to >convince people and young students that common descent made perfect sense. Biologists do not use the "famous chart" as evidence. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousand even, fossils that support common descent. There are multiple line evidence, not just fossils but comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, biogeographics, that support common descent. >If your theories were true, that means that life should have evolved on >the moon and on Mars. Again, evolution does not mean the origin of life. And there is nothing in evolution theory that says that there should be life on the Moon. >Perhaps our well equipped astranauts could live on >the Moon or on Mars but it would be impossible for mass numbers of people >to live on the moon or on mars. Many Christians believe that God was >responsible for making sure the Earth was the perfect distance from the >sun and that the orbit would not cause any great harm to the people or >life forms on earth. Again you point out that God has not been able to allow humans to live where it is inhospitable to life, only where natural conditions allow life. -- 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" Quote
Guest skyeyes Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 6, 1:09 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. Kindly provide evidence that any "God" actually exists . Go ahead. I'll wait. Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes at dakotacom dot net Quote
Guest firelock_ny@hotmail.com Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 6, 4:09 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. Now, show that he didn't do it using evolution. Science doesn't say god exists, or doesn't exist. It merely looks at the universe in terms of evidence. We've got evidence for evolution, we've got none either way on whether or not a supernatural being imperceptibly affected the process to come up with humans. He might have, he might not have, but that's not a question that's going to be answered with science. -- Walt Smith Firelock on DALNet Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.