Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 <snip> > > That was an assumption and there is proof that the offspring would > > probably be infertile. > > I think you meant "there is NO proof..." They can infer that human / > neanderthal offspring would be infertile from the fact that horse / > donkey offspring are infertile or that wolf / dog offspring or that > lion / tiger male offspring are infertile. They could be wrong and it > could be easily shown if any unique neanderthal genes were passed on > to modern humans. Thanks--I did mean to state "there is NO proof that the offspring would be infertile. Just because A is true it does not mean that B is true. Just because the offsping of a horse/donkey (A) are infertile, it does NOT mean that the offsping of a Cro-Magnums and Neathanthals (B) would be infertile. Just because evolutionists want the offspring to be infertile, it does not mean the offspring will be infertile. > > > > > Do you concede that there are people that know as much > > > > about science that you know that have different opinions than you related > > > > to this subject? > > > > > You snipped the links. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_Magnon > > >http://www.answers.com/topic/cro-magnon > > >http://www.answers.com/topic/neanderthal > > > > > The different sources do not provide wildly different information. > > > > The sources that are advocates of creation science do provide information > > that is different than the advocates of evolution. > > And yet the conclusions creationists make are wildly different. Why is > that? > > > > > Please comment on this statement: > > > > When I was in college, a biology professor that was an advocate of > > > > evolution told my class that it would be possible to dress a Neanderthal > > > > man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that > > > > Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and most people > > > > would not pay any attention to him? Was that a true statement? > > > > > We don't know. Seriously. For all we know Neanderthals had orange > > > skin. We can only guess what they would have looked like from their > > > bones. > > > > The orange skin must be new information. Do you have proof that > > Neanderthals had orange skin or is it another assumption? > > You seriously need to learn to read scientific text. Emphasis added > below: > > > > WE DON'T KNOW. Seriously. FOR ALL WE KNOW, Neanderthals had orange > > > skin. We can only GUESS what they would have looked like from their > > > bones. > > That neanderthals looked just like us but bigger is an ASSUMPTION and > it would have been wrong for your college professor to make such an > assumption. Even two human beings picked at random won't look alike. I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps you could answer this question:; Can scientists determine how tall a person is by measuring the length of certain bones--such as major leg bones? I believe that Neanderthals had bigger bones so it's my guess that they were heavier than Cro-Magnums. > > > > > Have you read the news reports indicating that scientists have found > > > > evidence indicating that Cro-Magnums and Neatherthals mated and produced > > > > offspring? > > > > > Did you notice that those reports were referenced in the links I > > > provided? > > > > > > Did you know that in 1972--scientists at that time believed that it was > > > > impossible for Neantherthals and Cro-Magnums to produce offspring when > > > > they mated due to vast genetic differences? > > > > > Neanderthals and modern humans (let alone Cro Magnon man) are 99.5% > > > identical. Even so, the offspring they produced might have been > > > sterile. What would need to be shown is that there were genes that > > > originated in neanderthals that then got passed to modern humans > > > through interbreeding with Cro Magnon man. Sort of makes you wish you > > > were a graduate student in genetics and you could get involved in this > > > research, doesn't it? > > > > I hated genetic college classes. I hated the Punnett Square. > > So? Kind of disqualifies you from talking seriously about evolution > if you have no interest in learning about genetics, doesn't it? > > > > The irony, of course, is that this research would be the final nail in > > > the coffin of creationism because if modern man is descended from both > > > Cro Magnon man and Neanderthals then modern man definitely was not > > > created "as is" but formed as a result of interbreeding between two > > > separate groups. I disagree. Many of the advocates of creation science believe that evolution took over after God created many life forms. I read an article in an ICR newsletter that explained how races began--it was mainly because of genetic changes that took place in groups of humans in various locations of the earth. Perhaps, Neanderthals were one of those races but that is my assumption. > > > > > > You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man are > > > > 99.5% identical. Are all races (including pygmies) 100 percent identical? > > > > > I can't find a website that gives me a straight answer. I know such > > > research has been done: I remember reading that Japanese people share > > > a lot of genetic markers with Europeans and that Polynesian ancestry > > > can be traced back to Taiwan and the Philippines. There's even a > > > _European Journal of Human Genetics_ that (obviously) specializes in > > > human genetics but papers from it are not available on line. > > > > > Problems arise because we are all part of the same species: race > > > accounts for only 5% of our variation ( Seehttp://en.wikipedia/wiki/race > > > ) as variations in height, eye colour and skin colour within local > > > populations are not considered racial differences. As the total > > > variation between different people cannot be more than 0.5% then the > > > difference between people of different races can only be 5% of 0.5% or > > > 0.025% of our total genome, meaning that people belonging to different > > > races (European and Japanese for example) can be up to 99.975% > > > identical. You'd expect pygmies to be significantly different from > > > white people genetically but researchers claim that "genetically there > > > is no evidence that Pygmies are distinct from other Africans" (See > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmies) so it would appear that, > > > genetically, we are very close indeed to being 100% identical. > > > > One of my concerns is that the researchers will try to manipulate the data > > to indicate what they want the data to show. > > "Manipulating data" is not science. Remember what happened to the > Korean geneticist who was found to have manipulated data? He is now > facing jail time for fraud: manipulating data is a serious charge, not > only because it is dishonest, but because it would mean that > scientists are fraudulently accepting government funding. Accusing > someone of manipulating data is a serious charge and you should be > prepared to back it up. (It's too bad you have no interest in > genetics.) Have you ever read about one of the so-called cavemen--it may have been Piltdown man or something like that. For many years, evolutionists were of the opinion that that caveman was one of the steps in man's evolution. No bones of that caveman had been found--just one tooth. Many years later, it was determined that tooth came from a pig. That was not really a manipulation of data. Instead, it involved evolutionists that wanted the tooth to be a caveman's tooth so they made the mistake of assuming that it was a caveman's tooth. I call it a an evolution mind set. An evolution mind-set means they do everything they can to make their research efforts support evolution theory. The advocates of creation science do the same thing in relation to data. Regardless of who does it--it's wrong. > > "Scientists", however, who receive money from Christian "science" > organizations are free to manipulate data -and are in fact encouraged > to do so. > > > For example, when they state > > that the offsping are probably sterile--that's is merely nothing more than > > an assumption based upon their wanting to make the data link up with > > evolution theory. > > Not at all. Evolution is a fact whether human / neanderthal offspring > were sterile or not. It's irrelevent. > > > When advocates of creation science do that--you get > > upset. > > Thank you for admitting that advocates of creation "science" do > "nothing more than" make "assumptions". > > > However, when advocates of evolution do the same thing--you don't > > appear to get upset or even notice it. Have you heard the old saying--"it > > depends on whose oxen is gored". > > You have no evidence that "advocates of evolution" have ever made > assumptions. You, yourself are only making an assumption that they do > because you want to discredit their work but the fact is that when you > ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. > > Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 6:34 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god > >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable > >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of > >> cause and effect has modified its matter. > > >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. > > > It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for > > me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > > If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe > > that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that > > junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and > > created. > > You mistake "evolution" for "chance". > Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. > > Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance > can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery > numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to > play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just > did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for > 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). Actually, that's not true. You may never win. Let's say you can win a lottery by choosing one number in ten. You're odds of winning are 1/10. Are you definitely going to win after ten attempts? No, because each attempt is an independent event in which the odds of losing are always 90%: even after playing ten times your chances of winning are only 65% = 1 - (.9)^10. This actually works in our favour: there may be billions of billions of planets out there in the universe and perhaps we are the only planet in the universe that has life. Why would any god create an entire universe and only place life on a single planet? It makes more sense if we realize that abiogenesis may be an extremely unlikely process. How can creationists expect us to easily produce life in a laboratory when we don't know if life actually arose anywhere besides Earth? The beauty is that if we _do_ find life on other planets then it would be proof that abiogenesis _does_ occur because it would show that life does emerge from non-life, and not just here on Earth either. Either way, creationism is a failed hypothesis. > Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution > combined. And you only need the starting point. > Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. <snip> Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179018262.363924.201600@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178953436.055714.108...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 12, 8:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > > > > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > > > > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > > > > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > > > > > There are no 8s and 9s in the 2000's. There aren't even any 6s and > > > 7s. How can you lie so boldly when you yourself are posting the > > > statistics??? Note that the murder rate peaked in 1991 and has been > > > dropping steadily ever since. > > > > That's true-there are not 8s or 9s in the 2000's--I made a mistake. > > However, there are NO 5s or higher in the 1950's and all figures in the > > 1990s and 2000s are above 5 and at least 9 figures from 1990 to 2004 are > > above 6. > > No, they aren't. From 1999 on, the figures are BELOW 6. We are both correct--I stated there are at least 9 figures from 1990 to 2004 that are above 6--that is a TRUE statement. > > > > Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950=AD2004 > > > Year Homicide > > > rate > > > 1990 9.4 > > > 1991 9.8 > > > 1992 9.3 > > > 1993 9.5 > > > 1994 9.0 > > > 1995 8.2 > > > 1996 7.4 > > > 1997 6.8 > > > 1998 6.3 > > > 1999 5.7 > > > 2000 5.5 > > > 2001 5.6 > > > 2002 5.6 > > > 2003 5.7 > > > 2004 5.5 > > The differences between the murder rates in the 50s and now are > clearly not significant difference because the murder rate actually > peaked in 1991 at 9.8. Despite your claims to the contrary, the > murder rates have been, in fact, dropping. > > Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 6:55 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > There's really no proof that Moses existed. I am all but completely convinced that Moses was Ahmose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:16:22 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205072116220001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <2mmc43hp6t7qofikgd05o38bkap63aq3c9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:30:24 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1205071730250001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04mdld@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1205071539420001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> >> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John >Popelish >> >> >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a >> >dictator but >> >> >> >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and >> >would be a >> >> >> >>> wonderful dictator. >> >> >> >> That is the fear talking. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> >> >> >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> >> >> >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> >> >> >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> >> >> >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> >> >> >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> >> >> >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> >> >> >> demon, you got there. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> >> >> >> might do you and infinite punishment. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >> >> >> >>> trust God since God is perfect. >> >> >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to >worship Satan. >> >> >> > I believe my choice is better. >> >> >> >> >> >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >> >> >> choices open up. >> >> >> >> >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >> >> >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >> >> >> >> >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. >> >> > >> >> >On judgement day, you will really be shocked. >> >> > >> >> There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no >> >> evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you >> >> worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one >> >> going to hell for worshipping the wrong god. >> > >> >Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. >> >> No, religious writings are absolutely _never_ evidence. You may choose >> to ignore that fact, but it won't change because you ignore it. Your >> religious texts cannot be shown to be more reliable than any other >> religious texts. >> >> >In many courts in America, >> >written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important. >> >> It depends on the purpose to which it is used and the provenance of the >> writing. The Bible fails on both counts and cannot be admitted into >> court except to the extent that it would be used to answer a question >> about what was written in some verse of the Bible. It is not and cannot >> be used for history or science. > >Not true-Many colleges have courses entitled, >The Bible as History That doesn't make the Bible usable for history. We know that most of Genesis is wrong. >I suggest that you read this book: >"In Six Days" Editor J.F. Ashton >50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical >version of creation. There is no scientific reason to reject evolution. The evidence shows that Biblical creationism is false. I won't waste my time with such lies. >> >Josh McDowell wrote a book entitled, "Evidence That Demands A >> >Verdict". I actually saw him preach in a church service. >> >> I actually own his collections of lies. His books are dishonest and >> misleading. > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179019540.936296.309650@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178954706.988121.96...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 12, 9:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > Good point--another factor is related to illegal immigrants that have > > > > committed murders. Back in the 1950's the numbers of illegal immigrants in > > > > America was much less than it now is. I read that 20 percent of the > > > > inmates in federal prisons are illegal immigrants. > > > > > This is rascist! You don't have any evidence that these illegal > > > immigrants are in jail because they have commited murder! Until you > > > have statistics stating why they are in jail you can't assume that! A > > > lot of them could be in jail for _being_ illegal immigrants. > > > > I don't know about other states but in California illegal immigrants are > > only placed in state prisons if they committed a felony. They may be > > placed in Federeal Prisons but NOT state prisons. > > Which would explain why 20% of the inmates in FEDERAL PRISONS are > illegal immigrants. > > > If they catch illegal > > immigrants that have not committed crimes, they are usally sent back to > > Mexico. > > 1) Not all illegal immigrants will be Mexican > > 2) The law allows for imprisonment for up to six months for first > offenses and up to two years for repeat offenders. This is how they > deter illegals from simply coming back over the border. > > > I live in California and have seen various stories related to > > illegal immigrants that have been convicted of murder. If you truly > > believe that NONE of the illegal immigrants that are in prison have > > committed murder--you are living in a dream world. > > I am not the one living in a dream world. What part of what I wrote > below did you not understand? Where did I say that NO murder had ever > been commited by an immigrant? > > Jason, we have been civil up to now but if you start attacking me > personally then the gloves are off! > > > There are at least two > > gangs--one is called the Mexican Mafia and the other one is called Nutras > > Familia (spelling??). The members of those two gangs have committed lots > > of murders. > > It is racist to to equate all illegal immigrants with gang members. > There have been white gangs, black gangs and even Asian gangs in > America too. Most people who come to America looking for work are not > only not looking for trouble but are going to avoid getting into > trouble for fear of being sent back to Mexico. That is a true statement. Most illegal immigrants do not get involved in criminal behavior. I have worked with some of those wonderful people. I did not mean to offend you. > > Martin > > > >http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html > > > > > "Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by > > > Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who: > > > > > "Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place > > > other than as designated by immigration officers; or > > > > > "Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or > > > > > "Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a > > > willfully false or misleading representation or the willful > > > concealment of a material fact; > > > has committed a federal crime. > > > > > "Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up > > > to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison." > > > > > The fact that illegal immigrants are in jail should not be interpreted > > > as evidence that illegal immigrants commit any more murders on average > > > than any other group in the United States. In fact, they would be > > > expected to commit _fewer_ murders because commiting murder is an > > > excellent way to draw the attention of immigration officials to your > > > case! > > > > > Even if statistically more murders were commited by illegal > > > immigrants, most illegal immigrants are from Latin American countries > > > and, thus, are predominently Catholic and not atheist. This goes a > > > long way to explaining why only 0.2% of the prison population is > > > atheist. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 6:49 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f25ev3$mb3$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <464627b9$0$21840$db0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > >>> <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > >>>>> <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > >>>>>>> <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > >>>>>>>>> proof that it ever happened. > >>>>>>>> errr HELLO! > > >>>>>>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not > >>>>>>>> evolved) from non-life > > >>>>>>>> What the hell are you on about? > > >>>>>>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive > > life came > >>>>>>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > >>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >>>>>>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > >>>>>>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > >>>>>>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier > >>>>>>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you > > appear to > >>>>>>> believe. > >>>>>> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." > > >>>>>> Are you now backtracking on that statement? > >>>>> Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live > >>>>> evolved from non-life. > >>>> Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the > >>>> hell are you on man? > > >>>> Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating > >>>> molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears > >>>> and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. > >>>> What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life > >>>> didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from > >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > >>> Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a > >>> jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a > >>> vehicle. > > >>> Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of > >>> natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was > >>> designed and created. > > >>> Do you see my point? > >>> Jason > > >> Ever heard of "Cargo-cult"? > > >> Tokay > > > No > > Google might help. Or Wikipedia. > Or what dictionary you prefer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult "A cargo cult is any of a group of unorthodox religious movements appearing in tribal societies in the wake of Western impact, especially in New Guinea and Melanesia. Cargo cults sometimes maintain that manufactured western goods ("cargo") have been created by divine spirits and are intended for the local indigenous people, but that white people have unfairly gained control of these objects. Cargo cults thus focus on overcoming what they perceive as undue 'white' influences by conducting rituals similar to the white behavior they have observed, presuming that the ancestors will at last recognize their own and send them cargo. Thus a characteristic feature of cargo cults is the belief that spiritual agents will at some future time give much valuable cargo and desirable manufactured products to the cult members. In other instances such as on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu, cult members worship Americans who brought the cargo. [1]" Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 8:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the > complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because > I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. I do not believe a living > cell could come about by chance. A living cell is more complex in design > than a new computer or a new Lexus. That's the reason I believe there was > a creator. For the sake of discussion, let's say that a living cell could > come about by chance or evolve from non-life. If that were true, a > scientist could develop the conditions necessary to make it happen. You mean like creating amino acids an bilipid membranes in the lab? Stuff like that? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 8:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > >When Einstein > > > Cite please. > > Nightline had a special related to a debate between two oupspoken > Christians and two outspoken atheists. One of the Christians used the > quote from Einstein related to the watch. You mean Kirk Cameron when he said Einstein believed in God? He did not provide that quote. He just said "I didn't say he was Christian". He provided no quote to prove that Einstein believed in God. In fact, it is not true. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179019803.090831.223160@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178955578.365189.164...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What > > > > do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other > > > > earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly > > > > small tracing. > > > > > Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did > > > they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder > > > and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let > > > alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And > > > what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as > > > murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate > > > foul play? > > > The main reason that I only went back to 1950 is because things like the > > depression and World Wars may have had an effect on the figures. > > And today we still have the drug trade. > > Is this an admission on your part that murder rates have nothing to do > with belief in God? > > Martin Martin, No--I would not concede that point. I continue to believe that Christians that take their religion seriously are less likely to commit crimes--including murder-- than Christians that do NOT take their religion seriously or other people that have no regard for obeying the law. I acknowledge--thanks to you and others--that there are atheists and members of other religions that are wonderful law obiding people that do good deeds. It appears to me (based upon newspaper articles and television news shows) that crime is more of a problem in the 2000's than it was in the 1950's and 1960's. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <0is1i.797$Ta.644@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1105071716250001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1178923441.783791.47270@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote: > > > >> On May 11, 6:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God > >> > created life. Facts support my theory. > >> > >> What a LIAR you are! You couldn't come up with even one supported > >> fact for your case when I challenged you on it. You ran away. So why > >> are you still telling this lie? > >> > >> Post your supported "facts" right here or quit LYING. > >> > >> Budikka > > > > The facts are in this book. If you choose not to read the facts--that's > > not my fault: > > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > > A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils > > You need to read "The Antiquity of Man" by Mikey Brass. He does an > absolutely splendid job in destroying the arguments of Lubenow. You amuse me > by barging in here and assuming that none of us have read anything. As I > told you earlier, I have Darwin's 'famous book' and another 'not so famous > book'. In addition I have numerous books on science, creation and theology. > You should read some 'famous' books one day. You could start with 'The > Antiquity of Man'. Have you read Lubenow's book? Thanks for the book suggestions. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 8:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no > > evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you > > worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one > > going to hell for worshipping the wrong god. > > Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. God doesn't exist. The above is written evidence that God doesn't even exist. <snip> Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 8:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > God gave us free will when he created mankind. Even angels have free will. God doesn't exist. Angels don't exist. There's no evidence that free will even exists. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > John, > Thanks for your post. It has been many years since I have take any college > science courses and had forgotten that the earliest cells were less > complex than current cells. Do you believe scientists will ever develop > the conditions necessary for the evolution of a living cell from non-life. I don't believe it (as in have faith that it will happen) but I wouldn't be very surprised if it happened. Finding life on another planet would go a long way toward understanding what it takes for it to happen. Right now, we have only one example and things have changed so much that there are quite a few possibilities of exactly what happened here. A second (and third) independent example would help eliminate some of the possibilities and help us focus on what remains. > An example would be placing amino acids in the same sort of environment > that is conductive to cell growth and development? Not really my area of expertise, but the research is interesting to follow. Unfortunately, at this point, I think the hypotheses are blossoming faster than the experimental evidence is clearing away unlikely possibilities. > Thanks for the book suggestions. You are welcome. If you like CSI type TV shows, this book will hold your interest. It quickly gets complicated, but goes into enough details (with pictures) to help you follow the trail of reasoning that leads to the conclusions reached. I felt like m extended family had gotten a lot larger by the time I finished it. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f25i4o$ld8$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f25fp6$33o$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>>>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>>>>>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>>>>> (snip) >>>>>> >>>>>> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >>>>>> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >>>>>> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >>>>>> cause and effect has modified its matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for >>>>> me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>>>> >>>>> If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe >>>>> that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that >>>>> junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and >>>>> created. >>>> You mistake "evolution" for "chance". >>>> Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. >>>> >>>> Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance >>>> can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery >>>> numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to >>>> play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just >>>> did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for >>>> 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). >>>> Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution >>>> combined. And you only need the starting point. >>>> Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. >>> Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the >>> complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because >>> I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. I do not believe a living >>> cell could come about by chance. A living cell is more complex in design >>> than a new computer or a new Lexus. That's the reason I believe there was >>> a creator. For the sake of discussion, let's say that a living cell could >>> come about by chance or evolve from non-life. If that were true, a >>> scientist could develop the conditions necessary to make it happen. >>> Scientists have tried to do that and they have failed. On the other hand, >>> there are lots of people like yourself that believe that it just happened >>> by chance. Unless a scientist can design an experiment that causes life to >>> evolve from non-life, I will continue to believe in a creator God. >>> jason >> There are some other quotes along these lines, you know. >> Let's see if I can remember some.... >> (Pretty free retyping....) >> >> "640K will be enough for everyone" (Bill Gates, I think) >> >> "Aeroplanes? Nice, but no use to the army/navy" (some general or other) >> >> It goes on that way.... >> >> Oh, and a nice one.... >> >> "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" >> (Neil Armstrong) >> >>>>> When Einstein was asked about this subject, he pulled out his pocket watch >>>>> and showed it to the reporter that asked the question. He stated, "This >>>>> watch had a designer and life had a designer." I agree with Einstein >>>>> Jason >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Since you seem to hate snipping, I leave that in and only add that I >>>> don't think Einstein said anything like that or meant a "creator" in >>>> sense of a god. >>> Einstein did not say what he meant when he used the term designer. >>> >>> >> Other quotes from Einstein do not support this quote. Do you happen to >> have a link from where you got that quote? I still don't think he said >> anything like that. > > There was a debate between two Christians and two atheists on Nightline > about two nights ago. One of the Christian debaters told the Einstein > watch story. > I remembered it since his statement made sense. But it does not make sense compared to quite a few other quotes from Albert.... In the end, this quote (if true or not) does not prove much. Einstein was an astrophysicists. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <MP6dnYutKMR00tvbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the >>> complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because >>> I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. >> (snip) >> >> Keep in mind that the cells being discussed have been >> evolving for some 4.5 billion years. They have come a long >> way from the earliest cells. Most are also collaborations >> of several earlier cell types, with lots of clues remaining >> about who enveloped who and how they managed to cooperate >> instead of one eating the other. The wonderful thing about >> life, is that it keeps lots of old photos in the attic, so >> to speak, and biological science is unraveling a lot of neat >> details about this rich history. >> >> If you are interested in reading about this complex story, >> or at least, some of what has been unraveled, so far, I suggest: >> "Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells (the enigmatic >> smile)" by Betsey Dexter Dyer and Alan Obar. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > John, > Thanks for your post. It has been many years since I have take any college > science courses and had forgotten that the earliest cells were less > complex than current cells. Do you believe scientists will ever develop > the conditions necessary for the evolution of a living cell from non-life. The question was ot to me, but I will answer: Yes, I believe someday they will. > An example would be placing amino acids in the same sort of environment > that is conductive to cell growth and development? That and enough time, yes. > Thanks for the book suggestions. > jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Don Kresch wrote: > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:16:13 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > >> In article <f25fp6$33o$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>>>>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >>>>> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >>>>> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >>>>> cause and effect has modified its matter. >>>>> >>>>> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for >>>> me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>>> >>>> If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe >>>> that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that >>>> junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and >>>> created. >>> You mistake "evolution" for "chance". >>> Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. >>> >>> Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance >>> can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery >>> numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to >>> play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just >>> did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for >>> 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). >>> Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution >>> combined. And you only need the starting point. >>> Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. >> Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the >> complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because >> I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. I do not believe a living >> cell could come about by chance > > I don't believe that god could come about by chance. God is > very complex. Therefore, god was designed. > > That's the idea. The problem just shifted. That's all. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <MP6dnYutKMR00tvbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the > > complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because > > I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. > (snip) > > Keep in mind that the cells being discussed have been > evolving for some 4.5 billion years. They have come a long > way from the earliest cells. Most are also collaborations > of several earlier cell types, with lots of clues remaining > about who enveloped who and how they managed to cooperate > instead of one eating the other. The wonderful thing about > life, is that it keeps lots of old photos in the attic, so > to speak, and biological science is unraveling a lot of neat > details about this rich history. > > If you are interested in reading about this complex story, > or at least, some of what has been unraveled, so far, I suggest: > "Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells (the enigmatic > smile)" by Betsey Dexter Dyer and Alan Obar. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John, Thanks for your post. It has been many years since I have take any college science courses and had forgotten that the earliest cells were less complex than current cells. Do you believe scientists will ever develop the conditions necessary for the evolution of a living cell from non-life. An example would be placing amino acids in the same sort of environment that is conductive to cell growth and development? Thanks for the book suggestions. jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <f25i4o$ld8$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f25fp6$33o$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > >>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > >>>>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > >>>> (snip) > >>>> > >>>> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god > >>>> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable > >>>> properties that must produce life after the right amount of > >>>> cause and effect has modified its matter. > >>>> > >>>> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for > >>> me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. > >>> > >>> If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe > >>> that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that > >>> junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and > >>> created. > >> You mistake "evolution" for "chance". > >> Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. > >> > >> Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance > >> can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery > >> numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to > >> play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just > >> did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for > >> 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). > >> Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution > >> combined. And you only need the starting point. > >> Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. > > > > Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the > > complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because > > I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. I do not believe a living > > cell could come about by chance. A living cell is more complex in design > > than a new computer or a new Lexus. That's the reason I believe there was > > a creator. For the sake of discussion, let's say that a living cell could > > come about by chance or evolve from non-life. If that were true, a > > scientist could develop the conditions necessary to make it happen. > > Scientists have tried to do that and they have failed. On the other hand, > > there are lots of people like yourself that believe that it just happened > > by chance. Unless a scientist can design an experiment that causes life to > > evolve from non-life, I will continue to believe in a creator God. > > jason > > There are some other quotes along these lines, you know. > Let's see if I can remember some.... > (Pretty free retyping....) > > "640K will be enough for everyone" (Bill Gates, I think) > > "Aeroplanes? Nice, but no use to the army/navy" (some general or other) > > It goes on that way.... > > Oh, and a nice one.... > > "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" > (Neil Armstrong) > > > > >> > >>> When Einstein was asked about this subject, he pulled out his pocket watch > >>> and showed it to the reporter that asked the question. He stated, "This > >>> watch had a designer and life had a designer." I agree with Einstein > >>> Jason > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Since you seem to hate snipping, I leave that in and only add that I > >> don't think Einstein said anything like that or meant a "creator" in > >> sense of a god. > > > > Einstein did not say what he meant when he used the term designer. > > > > > > Other quotes from Einstein do not support this quote. Do you happen to > have a link from where you got that quote? I still don't think he said > anything like that. There was a debate between two Christians and two atheists on Nightline about two nights ago. One of the Christian debaters told the Einstein watch story. I remembered it since his statement made sense. > > Tokay Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Martin wrote: > Did Adolf Hitler end up in heaven? According to this funky logic, no problem there. If he did confess his sins before he died, and - since this cosmic zombie is benevolent - is forgiven, then, yes. He might have ended up in heaven. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179015339.002766.58030@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 2:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <5alq3oF2oseo...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > > > > <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote in message > > >news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... > > > > Jason wrote: > > > >> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4p...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > >> <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > >>> (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > > >>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > > > >>>> <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >>>>>news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > >>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect > > > >>>>>> or > > > >>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised > > > >> his free > > > >>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God > > > >> does not > > > >>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He > > > >>>>>> wants > > > >>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > > > >>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. > > > > > >>>>>> . > > > >>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created > > > >>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can > > > >>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. > > > >>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. > > > >>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. > > > >>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an > > > >>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the > > > >>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of > > > >>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know what you > > > >>>>> will do > > > >> before > > > >>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. > > > >>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, > > > >> by your > > > >>>>> own statement, there is no God. > > > >>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free > > > >>>> will. > > > >>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create > > > >>> everything. Which will it be? > > > > > >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to > > > >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please > > > >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the > > > >> last time. > > > > > > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not > > > > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. > > > > > I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. > > > He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will and an > > > omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. > > > > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. > > That is a contradiction. See my previous post: God would not even > have free will if he were omniscient because he would be able to > foresee his own actions perfectly. > > Martin Martin, Just because God could foresee his own actions perfectly--it does not mean that God spends his time forseeing his actions perfectly. One person was concerned that God was somehow responsible for his actions. Just because God is fully capable of controlling someone's life (remember the story of Johah and the large fish)--it does not mean that he spends all of his time controlling the life of that poster. God gave us free will and in most cases does not intervene in our lives. There are exceptions but this is usually true. jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 10:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179016435.560080.46...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 3:09 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f23v14$pbs$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > > I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God > created life > > > > > on this earth. There have been at least two books about this subject. > > > > > What books? I can explain the theory of evolution here without much > > > > trouble and have done so. I can point you to evidence that fits this > theory. > > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > > > A thorough examination of all pre-human fossils. > > >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html > > > "The major theme of Bones of Contention is that the various species of > > hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one > > another in time. > > > "Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given > > rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at > > least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the > > newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, > > drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect > > because members of the parent species may live in a separate region > > from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there > > may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy > > different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even > > the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, > > it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new > > species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. > > Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own > > niches. > > > "This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human > > evolution but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a > > species cannot split into two species. Obviously this is not the view > > of speciation accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that > > the number of living species could never increase. Nor, in fact, is it > > a view of speciation generally accepted by creationists, most of whom > > believe that many living species descended from the same biblical > > 'kind'. In fact, this argument is so weak that even Answers in Genesis > > has abandoned it; as they correctly point out, "... there's nothing in > > evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct." " > > > > Another interesting book: > > > "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Ashton > > > 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical version > > > of creation. > > > 93% of qualified scientists don't even believe in God. > > > Have you even read these books? Why don't you present arguments from > > these books instead of just simply telling us they exist? Thousands, > > if not hundreds of thousands, of books describe evidence of evolution. > > Have you read that book? I asked you first. > I doubt it. It also discusses fossil evidence. Present some. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <5an1cgF2ngp1fU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message > news:l9hc4397k7375tbe40ikt1vfsrm4b9admr@4ax.com... > > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:49:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >>> >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he > >>> >> wants to > >>> >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, > >>> >> please > >>> >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that > >>> >> the > >>> >> last time. > >>> > > >>> > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is > >>> > not > >>> > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your > >>> > pick. > >>> > > >>> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick > >>> one. > >>> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will > >>> and an > >>> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. > >> > >>I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. > > > > And did god create everything? If so, then there's no free > > will. > > > Let's see if I can spell this one out for him as simple as possible so he > can follow the argument... > > Jason, I'd like you to answer the following questions with a "yes" or "no" > or " don't know"... > > 1.Did your God create everything? God created mankind, lots of plants and lots of animals. > > 2. Does your God know everything that has happened, is happening, or will > happen?(omniscience) He knows as much as he wants to know. > > 3. Can your God do anything?(omnipotence He can do anything that he wants to do. I don't know whether or there are things that he would never do. > > 4. Do you have free will? yes > > 5. Does your god know exactly what you are doing right now? If he chooses to know what I am doing right now. > > 6. Does your God know exactly what you will do tomorrow? If he chooses to know what I will do tomorrow. > > 7. Do you have a choice as to what you do or don't do tomorrow? yes > > 8. Are you capable of doing something tomorrow which your God does not know > about? God (if he wants to) would know those things. > > 9.When God created the universe, did he know everything that vwas about to > happen? If he chose to know--he would know. Perhaps he did not choose to know. > > 10. Is there any way at all you can change what God already knows you are > going to do tomorrow? I can't control God. > > 11.Do you still believe you have free will , and can change anything that > God knew about or would know about from the start of creation? yes, I have free will > > Hope those questions weren't too much trouble for you, I'd be interested to > see your response. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <2mmc43hp6t7qofikgd05o38bkap63aq3c9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:30:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1205071730250001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04mdld@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1205071539420001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > >> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > >> >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a > >dictator but > >> >> >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and > >would be a > >> >> >>> wonderful dictator. > >> >> >> That is the fear talking. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly > >> >> >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when > >> >> >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, > >> >> >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been > >> >> >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this > >> >> >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and > >> >> >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical > >> >> >> demon, you got there. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it > >> >> >> might do you and infinite punishment. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would > >> >> >>> trust God since God is perfect. > >> >> >> (snip) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). > >> >> > > >> >> > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. > >> >> > I believe my choice is better. > >> >> > >> >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other > >> >> choices open up. > >> >> > >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep > >> >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. > >> >> > >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. > >> > > >> >On judgement day, you will really be shocked. > >> > > >> There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no > >> evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you > >> worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one > >> going to hell for worshipping the wrong god. > > > >Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. > > No, religious writings are absolutely _never_ evidence. You may choose > to ignore that fact, but it won't change because you ignore it. Your > religious texts cannot be shown to be more reliable than any other > religious texts. > > >In many courts in America, > >written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important. > > It depends on the purpose to which it is used and the provenance of the > writing. The Bible fails on both counts and cannot be admitted into > court except to the extent that it would be used to answer a question > about what was written in some verse of the Bible. It is not and cannot > be used for history or science. Not true-Many colleges have courses entitled, The Bible as History I suggest that you read this book: "In Six Days" Editor J.F. Ashton 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical versionof creation. > > >Josh McDowell wrote a book entitled, "Evidence That Demands A > >Verdict". I actually saw him preach in a church service. > > I actually own his collections of lies. His books are dishonest and > misleading. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > <snip> > > > > That was an assumption and there is proof that the offspring would > > > probably be infertile. > > > I think you meant "there is NO proof..." They can infer that human / > > neanderthal offspring would be infertile from the fact that horse / > > donkey offspring are infertile or that wolf / dog offspring or that > > lion / tiger male offspring are infertile. They could be wrong and it > > could be easily shown if any unique neanderthal genes were passed on > > to modern humans. > > Thanks--I did mean to state "there is NO proof that the offspring would be > infertile. Just because A is true it does not mean that B is true. Just > because the offsping of a horse/donkey (A) are infertile, it does NOT mean > that the offsping of a Cro-Magnums and Neathanthals (B) would be > infertile. Just because evolutionists want the offspring to be infertile, > it does not mean the offspring will be infertile. Just because the evolutionists believe the offspriong to be infertile (A) does not mean that they want to believe the offspring are infertile (B). Being a scientist means coming to believe things that you don't necessarily want to believe. > > > > > Do you concede that there are people that know as much > > > > > about science that you know that have different opinions than you > related > > > > > to this subject? > > > > > You snipped the links. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_Magnon > > > >http://www.answers.com/topic/cro-magnon > > > >http://www.answers.com/topic/neanderthal > > > > > The different sources do not provide wildly different information. > > > > The sources that are advocates of creation science do provide information > > > that is different than the advocates of evolution. > > > And yet the conclusions creationists make are wildly different. Why is > > that? Well? > > > > > Please comment on this statement: > > > > > When I was in college, a biology professor that was an advocate of > > > > > evolution told my class that it would be possible to dress a Neanderthal > > > > > man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that > > > > > Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and > most people > > > > > would not pay any attention to him? Was that a true statement? > > > > > We don't know. Seriously. For all we know Neanderthals had orange > > > > skin. We can only guess what they would have looked like from their > > > > bones. > > > > The orange skin must be new information. Do you have proof that > > > Neanderthals had orange skin or is it another assumption? > > > You seriously need to learn to read scientific text. Emphasis added > > below: > > > > > WE DON'T KNOW. Seriously. FOR ALL WE KNOW, Neanderthals had orange > > > > skin. We can only GUESS what they would have looked like from their > > > > bones. > > > That neanderthals looked just like us but bigger is an ASSUMPTION and > > it would have been wrong for your college professor to make such an > > assumption. Even two human beings picked at random won't look alike. > > I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps you could answer this question:; Can > scientists determine how tall a person is by measuring the length of > certain bones--such as major leg bones? I believe that Neanderthals had > bigger bones so it's my guess that they were heavier than Cro-Magnums. Your biology professor supposedly said "it would be possible to dress a Neanderthal man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and most people would not pay any attention to him". There's NO way he could possibly know that. Consider the fact that skeletons of people from different races look identical and yet we can tell when people look Chinese, black, Indian, Mexican, etc. I've been in Asia for ten years and I always have little kids staring at me: they notice I am different even though I am not a neanderthal. I can only hope that your teacher was speculating (assuming this story wasn't just something you made up). > > > > > Have you read the news reports indicating that scientists have found > > > > > evidence indicating that Cro-Magnums and Neatherthals mated and produced > > > > > offspring? > > > > > Did you notice that those reports were referenced in the links I > > > > provided? > > > > > > Did you know that in 1972--scientists at that time believed that it was > > > > > impossible for Neantherthals and Cro-Magnums to produce offspring when > > > > > they mated due to vast genetic differences? > > > > > Neanderthals and modern humans (let alone Cro Magnon man) are 99.5% > > > > identical. Even so, the offspring they produced might have been > > > > sterile. What would need to be shown is that there were genes that > > > > originated in neanderthals that then got passed to modern humans > > > > through interbreeding with Cro Magnon man. Sort of makes you wish you > > > > were a graduate student in genetics and you could get involved in this > > > > research, doesn't it? > > > > I hated genetic college classes. I hated the Punnett Square. > > > So? Kind of disqualifies you from talking seriously about evolution > > if you have no interest in learning about genetics, doesn't it? Doesn't it? > > > > The irony, of course, is that this research would be the final nail in > > > > the coffin of creationism because if modern man is descended from both > > > > Cro Magnon man and Neanderthals then modern man definitely was not > > > > created "as is" but formed as a result of interbreeding between two > > > > separate groups. > > I disagree. Many of the advocates of creation science believe that > evolution took over after God created many life forms. I read an article > in an ICR newsletter that explained how races began--it was mainly because > of genetic changes that took place in groups of humans in various > locations of the earth. Perhaps, Neanderthals were one of those races but > that is my assumption. There is no signifant difference between micro evolution and macro evolution: you do not walk a mile without taking individual steps. > > > > > You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man are > > > > > 99.5% identical. Are all races (including pygmies) 100 percent > identical? > > > > > I can't find a website that gives me a straight answer. I know such > > > > research has been done: I remember reading that Japanese people share > > > > a lot of genetic markers with Europeans and that Polynesian ancestry > > > > can be traced back to Taiwan and the Philippines. There's even a > > > > _European Journal of Human Genetics_ that (obviously) specializes in > > > > human genetics but papers from it are not available on line. > > > > > Problems arise because we are all part of the same species: race > > > > accounts for only 5% of our variation ( Seehttp://en.wikipedia/wiki/race > > > > ) as variations in height, eye colour and skin colour within local > > > > populations are not considered racial differences. As the total > > > > variation between different people cannot be more than 0.5% then the > > > > difference between people of different races can only be 5% of 0.5% or > > > > 0.025% of our total genome, meaning that people belonging to different > > > > races (European and Japanese for example) can be up to 99.975% > > > > identical. You'd expect pygmies to be significantly different from > > > > white people genetically but researchers claim that "genetically there > > > > is no evidence that Pygmies are distinct from other Africans" (See > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmies) so it would appear that, > > > > genetically, we are very close indeed to being 100% identical. > > > > One of my concerns is that the researchers will try to manipulate the data > > > to indicate what they want the data to show. > > > "Manipulating data" is not science. Remember what happened to the > > Korean geneticist who was found to have manipulated data? He is now > > facing jail time for fraud: manipulating data is a serious charge, not > > only because it is dishonest, but because it would mean that > > scientists are fraudulently accepting government funding. Accusing > > someone of manipulating data is a serious charge and you should be > > prepared to back it up. (It's too bad you have no interest in > > genetics.) > > Have you ever read about one of the so-called cavemen--it may have been > Piltdown man or something like that. For many years, evolutionists were of > the opinion that that caveman was one of the steps in man's evolution. No > bones of that caveman had been found--just one tooth. Many years later, it > was determined that tooth came from a pig. That was not really a > manipulation of data. Instead, it involved evolutionists that wanted the > tooth to be a caveman's tooth so they made the mistake of assuming that it > was a caveman's tooth. I call it a an evolution mind set. As opposed to a creationist mind set? > An evolution > mind-set means they do everything they can to make their research efforts > support evolution theory. The advocates of creation science do the same > thing in relation to data. Regardless of who does it--it's wrong. The difference is that it is other scientists who are able find and identify fraudulant data and not creationists. Thank you for admitting that advocates of creation "science" do "everything they can to make their research efforts support" creationism. <snip> 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.