Guest Ash Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1178510378.669243.168180@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > We have fossil evidence > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ you have fossil evidence of God? how many arms did he have? Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:45:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0705071345180001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <vagu331l79kfjgf11c2p6nndmj9sh3ilfk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> 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? > >God created all of the plants and animals that were in the Garden of Eden. >The plants and animals that are in the world today evolved from those >plants and animals that God created during that first week. > > >> >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? > >The Bible clearly states that God created modern man. The Bible is not scientific evidence. Nor does it say how. Nor when. And if you say that the Earth is 6,000 years old you have many more issues. >Common descent >teaches that modern man evolved from a monkey type creature. Common Descent is the very well supported claim that all life on Earth descends from a common set of ancestors. And H. sapiens is still a "monkey type" creature. Take a look at some chimps some day, they are astoundingly similar to humans. >Evolutionists >refer to it as the "common ancestor" of monkeys and people. What "it"? >However, none >of the bones of that common ancestor have ever been found. There are millions of species around today, not just humans. We have evidence for the common descent of all life, not simply of humans and chimps. We have lots of bones of ancestors of humans. What exactly are we missing that we would expect to find? >However, we >have no problem with various plants and animals evolving from those plants >and animals that God created. So all life except humans, right? >I do believe that the races could be the >result of genetic changes that happened many years after God created Adam >and Eve. Of course you don't mind a bit of racism. > >> >> >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. > >It may have been the result of a bone disease other than rickets. Doesn't that seem just a bit wrong to you? Somehow you just know that it was a disease, you don't know what disease or how or why, but you just know it can't be a human like creature. And what about the hundreds of others? >I have >actually seen people that look like Neanderthals as a result of a bone >disease or perhaps it was related to some sort of genetic problem. You have? Now you are just lying. You have no idea what a Neanderthal would look like or what diseases do, you just really want the world to be some particular way. How about H. habalis? Seen any of those around lately? >Of >course, I did not walk up to them and ask them what sort of disorder they >had. You have probably also seen people that look like Neanderthals but I >suspect that you would never admit it. I saw a famous professional >wrestler (on television) that looked just like a Neaderthal. Does anyone >remember the name of that famous wrestler? ROTFLMAO. I see, so "big" means "Neanderthal" which means "diseased". I guess if you close your eyes everything looks the same. >> >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. > >Believe it or not, when I was in college, I wrote a 5 page report on >Neanderthals. I examined about 20 different books in search of the >required 5 or more references. I obtained my BS degree in 1974. At that >time, it was believed that Neatherthals were vastly different than >Cro-Magnums and even if they mated--they would not have children as a >result of that mating due to the genetic differences. And it is controversial if they did mate. Either way it would not shake evolution in the slightest. Donkeys and horses can made, but the offspring are not fertile. That actually fits evolution theory. >> >> >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. > >My point is that God had a well developed plan. That is a conclusion, not evidence. >Part of plan was to design >a planet that was hospitable to the type of life forms that he planned to >create. Why? Again, an all powerful god could have made it so that we live where it is not hospitable. You drew a bad conclusion from the evidence. >Part of that same plan was to make sure that planet (Earth) was >the correct distance from the sun. The plan was a success. There are some >scientists that have discovered other solar systems that have a star and >several planets rotating around that star. Perhaps God also made sure that >one of those planets was the correct distance from that star. He could >have created people, plants and animals to live on one or more of those >planets. I hope so. That could be the source of the space ships that many >people have seen. Whatever. -- 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 <Xns9928D72B41C67doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159>, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote: > 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? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, I believe that God created Adam, Eve, lots of plants and lots of animals. I realize that I don't have a video tape to prove it. The only evidence is fossil evidence. If you visit the ICR website, you could purchase at least one those books that discuss the fossil evidence. Of course, I doubt that you would ever read that book. You stated that there is evidence that chimps and humans share a common genetic ancestor. It's my opinion that the reason that chimps and humans are similar is because God made humans and he made chimps. It would have been logical for God to use some of the same genetic materials to make humans and monkeys and apes. One of the reasons that I concentrate on how life began on this planet is because it is the main difference between creation science and evolution. If evolutionists are incorrect related to how life began on this planet, it means they are also wrong about some of the aspects of evolution such as what Matt refers to as "common descent". Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 In article <1178510378.669243.168180@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We have fossil evidence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > 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 Codebreaker Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 6, 7:52 pm, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On 6 May 2007 16:04:50 -0700, in alt.atheism , Tohu.B...@hotmail.com > > in <1178492690.858224.201...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On May 6, 6:59 pm, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min." > >> <annarober...@yahoo.com> in > > >> <1178482176.288791.80...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There > >> >is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution. > > >You mean the FAITH of Evolution? > > I offered a prediction below. How is that faith? > > >Yes, there is an alternative to it, or should I say > >something similar to it? I was thinking of Hinduism > > >> How is that an alternative? Evolution is a predictive model of the > >> change in populations of living things over time. Here is an example > >> of an evolutionary prediction, perhaps you can provide the " God in > >> His awesome power and authority" alternative. > > >> Suppose we have a small island near a large body of land. Using > >> evolution I can predict things about the biota on that island. Can you > >> provide your "God" prediction? Don't just predict... Tell us the names of their forefathers who evolved from chimps, the places of their burials and why did not document their "eVOLvition" > > -- > Matt Silberstein > > Do something today about the Darfur Genocide > > http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org > > "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 6, 8:10 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: > On May 6, 6:04 pm, Tohu.B...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On May 6, 6:59 pm, Matt Silberstein > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min." > > > <annarober...@yahoo.com> in > > > > <1178482176.288791.80...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > >Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There > > > >is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution. > > > You mean the FAITH of Evolution? > > Yes, there is an alternative to it, or should I say > > something similar to it? I was thinking of Hinduism > > I'll be happy to debate your alternative if you can support it, as > I've repeatedly requested, with positive science. > > But you can't, can you? You're quite plainly and simply lying, aren't > you? Is there any SCIENTIFICALLY verified LIARD than the one you believe in a worse myth of Evolution yet the role of CHRIST was explained to him > > Budikka Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 10:30 am, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2007 01:22:10 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" > > > > > > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >"Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in message > >news:cplr33tcm7jmh65ssac5rohh1ijo6bich6@4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 06 May 2007 08:14:43 -0400, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Sun, 6 May 2007 01:56:08 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" > >> ><HEs...@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. > Observed by who??? You are being a false witness. Did you ever observed a chimp turning into a human being? > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 In article <vagu331l79kfjgf11c2p6nndmj9sh3ilfk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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? God created all of the plants and animals that were in the Garden of Eden. The plants and animals that are in the world today evolved from those plants and animals that God created during that first week. > >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? The Bible clearly states that God created modern man. Common descent teaches that modern man evolved from a monkey type creature. Evolutionists refer to it as the "common ancestor" of monkeys and people. However, none of the bones of that common ancestor have ever been found. However, we have no problem with various plants and animals evolving from those plants and animals that God created. I do believe that the races could be the result of genetic changes that happened many years after God created Adam and Eve. > > >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. It may have been the result of a bone disease other than rickets. I have actually seen people that look like Neanderthals as a result of a bone disease or perhaps it was related to some sort of genetic problem. Of course, I did not walk up to them and ask them what sort of disorder they had. You have probably also seen people that look like Neanderthals but I suspect that you would never admit it. I saw a famous professional wrestler (on television) that looked just like a Neaderthal. Does anyone remember the name of that famous wrestler? > > >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. Believe it or not, when I was in college, I wrote a 5 page report on Neanderthals. I examined about 20 different books in search of the required 5 or more references. I obtained my BS degree in 1974. At that time, it was believed that Neatherthals were vastly different than Cro-Magnums and even if they mated--they would not have children as a result of that mating due to the genetic differences. > > >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. My point is that God had a well developed plan. Part of plan was to design a planet that was hospitable to the type of life forms that he planned to create. Part of that same plan was to make sure that planet (Earth) was the correct distance from the sun. The plan was a success. There are some scientists that have discovered other solar systems that have a star and several planets rotating around that star. Perhaps God also made sure that one of those planets was the correct distance from that star. He could have created people, plants and animals to live on one or more of those planets. I hope so. That could be the source of the space ships that many people have seen. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 06 May 2007 18:35:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: > > >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. Ok. Since god created life, god is alive. Therefore, god must have come from some other life. It's no use saying that god always was. If you say that, you're a hypocrite. So you have two options because of your idiotic statement: infinite regress or hypocrisy. Which is it? Are you a hypocrite, or is there an infinite regress? You cannot have any other alternatives. btw: the ICR is laughable. They're only marginally better than Kent Hovind. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Budikka666 Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 3:25 pm, Fartbreaker <Fartbrea...@bigsecret.com> lied: [snip] > Observed by who??? You are being a false witness. > Did you ever observed a chimp turning into a human being? No, but we see you turning into a jackass every time you post something and turning into a chicken every time I challenge you. [snip] Budikka Quote
Guest George Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 So their alternate 'theory' that they want to replace the theory of evolution involves a sky pixy and a bunch of nonverifyable 'miracles'... ID are the first two letters in IDIOT ! Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 4:59 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: > On May 7, 3:25 pm, Fartbreaker <Fartbrea...@bigsecret.com> lied: > [snip] > > > Observed by who??? You are being a false witness. > > Did you ever observed a chimp turning into a human being? > > No, but we see you turning into a jackass every time you post > something and turning into a chicken every time I challenge you. I thought it takes 3 billions days or hours for one specy to evolve into another. I have been posting here for only 5 years. So does your chicken have feet or legs? > > [snip] > > Budikka Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 7, 5:14 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote: > So their alternate 'theory' that they want to replace the theory of > evolution involves a sky pixy and a bunch of nonverifyable > 'miracles'... > ID are the first two letters in IDIOT ! Christianity is verifiable. It is grounded on Jesus claimed as Christ. and Christ was fortold by Moses and the rest of the Old covenant prophets His life and resurrection was preached to the whole world. So basically, what was foretold in the Old Covenant was verified by Some disciples in Jerusalem. It fits in the History of the world. IMPOSTOR SCIENCE IS EVOLUTION Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Mon, 07 May 2007 09:40:55 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: - Refer: <53bu3317mvqbdl9ojk4vah1lv6olefs4pb@4ax.com> >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. Quite. Douglas Adams was more of a scientist than many who are supposedly qualified. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 In article <701v33lbp8qtdtvjrqf2vsu7i23uoa9jtn@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:45:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) in > <Jason-0705071345180001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > >In article <vagu331l79kfjgf11c2p6nndmj9sh3ilfk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> 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? > > > >God created all of the plants and animals that were in the Garden of Eden. > >The plants and animals that are in the world today evolved from those > >plants and animals that God created during that first week. > > > > > >> >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? There are some aspects of evolution that have been proven in labortories and in experiments. This is especially true in relation to experiments with bacteria. Those are the aspects of evolution that we have no problems with. > > > >The Bible clearly states that God created modern man. > > The Bible is not scientific evidence. Nor does it say how. Nor when. > And if you say that the Earth is 6,000 years old you have many more > issues. ICR makes use of the 6000 year figure. I doubt that anyone knows the exact date that God created the earth and all life forms. I don't know the date or even the century. I accept the so called gap theory which simply means the earth may be several million years old. > > >Common descent > >teaches that modern man evolved from a monkey type creature. > > Common Descent is the very well supported claim that all life on Earth > descends from a common set of ancestors. And H. sapiens is still a > "monkey type" creature. Take a look at some chimps some day, they are > astoundingly similar to humans. Of course--the reason is because God made chimps and humans. He used some of th same types of genetic materials to make chimps and humans. Even many lower animals have organs that are similar to organs in chimps and humans. I read an article indicating that they are hoping to inject human genetic material into pigs with hopes of making use of hearts from those pigs in people. I hope those experiments are successful. > > >Evolutionists > >refer to it as the "common ancestor" of monkeys and people. > > What "it"? > > >However, none > >of the bones of that common ancestor have ever been found. > > There are millions of species around today, not just humans. We have > evidence for the common descent of all life, not simply of humans and > chimps. We have lots of bones of ancestors of humans. What exactly are > we missing that we would expect to find? I have no problem with the common descent related to various types of plants and animals. The problem that I have is relation to human descent. A represents the common descent of mammals B represents the common descent of plants C represents the common descent of humans Just because A and B is true, it does not mean that C is true. > > >However, we > >have no problem with various plants and animals evolving from those plants > >and animals that God created. > > So all life except humans, right? Yes--except for changes in relation to racial groups. > > >I do believe that the races could be the > >result of genetic changes that happened many years after God created Adam > >and Eve. > > Of course you don't mind a bit of racism. I have not stated the skin color of Adam and Eve--the reason--I don't know the skin color of Adam and Eve. > > > > >> > >> >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. > > > >It may have been the result of a bone disease other than rickets. > > Doesn't that seem just a bit wrong to you? Somehow you just know that > it was a disease, you don't know what disease or how or why, but you > just know it can't be a human like creature. And what about the > hundreds of others? > > >I have > >actually seen people that look like Neanderthals as a result of a bone > >disease or perhaps it was related to some sort of genetic problem. > > You have? Now you are just lying. You have no idea what a Neanderthal > would look like or what diseases do, you just really want the world to > be some particular way. How about H. habalis? Seen any of those around > lately? > > >Of > >course, I did not walk up to them and ask them what sort of disorder they > >had. You have probably also seen people that look like Neanderthals but I > >suspect that you would never admit it. I saw a famous professional > >wrestler (on television) that looked just like a Neaderthal. Does anyone > >remember the name of that famous wrestler? > > ROTFLMAO. I see, so "big" means "Neanderthal" which means "diseased". > I guess if you close your eyes everything looks the same. There are pictures in various books related to what Neanderthals looked like. I have seen people that looked like those pictures. I believe the wrestlers name may have been "Andree the Giant". You may want to google that term and find a picture of that wrestler. > > >> >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. > > > >Believe it or not, when I was in college, I wrote a 5 page report on > >Neanderthals. I examined about 20 different books in search of the > >required 5 or more references. I obtained my BS degree in 1974. At that > >time, it was believed that Neatherthals were vastly different than > >Cro-Magnums and even if they mated--they would not have children as a > >result of that mating due to the genetic differences. > > And it is controversial if they did mate. Either way it would not > shake evolution in the slightest. Donkeys and horses can made, but the > offspring are not fertile. That actually fits evolution theory. > > >> > >> >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. > > > >My point is that God had a well developed plan. > > That is a conclusion, not evidence. > > >Part of plan was to design > >a planet that was hospitable to the type of life forms that he planned to > >create. > > Why? Again, an all powerful god could have made it so that we live > where it is not hospitable. You drew a bad conclusion from the > evidence. > > >Part of that same plan was to make sure that planet (Earth) was > >the correct distance from the sun. The plan was a success. There are some > >scientists that have discovered other solar systems that have a star and > >several planets rotating around that star. Perhaps God also made sure that > >one of those planets was the correct distance from that star. He could > >have created people, plants and animals to live on one or more of those > >planets. I hope so. That could be the source of the space ships that many > >people have seen. > > Whatever. Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Tue, 08 May 2007 07:23:49 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Mon, 07 May 2007 09:40:55 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> >wrote: > - Refer: <53bu3317mvqbdl9ojk4vah1lv6olefs4pb@4ax.com> >>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. > >Quite. >Douglas Adams was more of a scientist than many who are supposedly >qualified. He was on talk.origins for a while, when a magazine had contracted him to write an article about the Aquatic Ape theory. He asked intelligent questions, discussing the answers and you could tell he was both intelligent and honest. I just checked on google. It was 1993. I'm getting old. Around the same time Phillip Johnson was also there. He started off asking questions, twisting the answers and browbeating the respondents to try and get the answers he already wanted. Just like a courtroom lawyer. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On 7 May 2007 13:20:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in <1178569210.385998.87990@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On May 6, 7:52 pm, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On 6 May 2007 16:04:50 -0700, in alt.atheism , Tohu.B...@hotmail.com >> >> in <1178492690.858224.201...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On May 6, 6:59 pm, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min." >> >> <annarober...@yahoo.com> in >> >> >> <1178482176.288791.80...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There >> >> >is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution. >> >> >You mean the FAITH of Evolution? >> >> I offered a prediction below. How is that faith? >> >> >Yes, there is an alternative to it, or should I say >> >something similar to it? I was thinking of Hinduism >> >> >> How is that an alternative? Evolution is a predictive model of the >> >> change in populations of living things over time. Here is an example >> >> of an evolutionary prediction, perhaps you can provide the " God in >> >> His awesome power and authority" alternative. >> >> >> Suppose we have a small island near a large body of land. Using >> >> evolution I can predict things about the biota on that island. Can you >> >> provide your "God" prediction? > > >Don't just predict... But that is what scientific models do. >Tell us the names of their forefathers who >evolved >from chimps, the places of their burials and why did not document >their "eVOLvition" How about you give that information for your ancestors for the last 10 generations. If you can do that I will pick up the conversation from there. -- 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 Matt Silberstein Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:00:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0705071500020001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <701v33lbp8qtdtvjrqf2vsu7i23uoa9jtn@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:45:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) in >> <Jason-0705071345180001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <vagu331l79kfjgf11c2p6nndmj9sh3ilfk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> >God created all of the plants and animals that were in the Garden of Eden. >> >The plants and animals that are in the world today evolved from those >> >plants and animals that God created during that first week. >> > >> > >> >> >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? > >There are some aspects of evolution that have been proven in labortories >and in experiments. This is especially true in relation to experiments >with bacteria. Those are the aspects of evolution that we have no problems >with. That is to say, if it is astoundingly well supported that you would look like an idiot to deny it you will not deny it at the moment. >> > >> >The Bible clearly states that God created modern man. >> >> The Bible is not scientific evidence. Nor does it say how. Nor when. >> And if you say that the Earth is 6,000 years old you have many more >> issues. > >ICR makes use of the 6000 year figure. I doubt that anyone knows the exact >date that God created the earth and all life forms. How about within a factor of 2? Of 10? >I don't know the date >or even the century. I accept the so called gap theory which simply means >the earth may be several million years old. > The Earth is 4.5 b illion years old. "Gap theory" is hand waving. >> >> >Common descent >> >teaches that modern man evolved from a monkey type creature. >> >> Common Descent is the very well supported claim that all life on Earth >> descends from a common set of ancestors. And H. sapiens is still a >> "monkey type" creature. Take a look at some chimps some day, they are >> astoundingly similar to humans. > >Of course--the reason is because God made chimps and humans. And if they are different it is because God did that. "Because God did it" is a useless explanation because it applies to absolutely everything we could possibly see. No matter what, you can always say "Because God did it". > He used some >of th same types of genetic materials to make chimps and humans. Maybe he did it over millions of years using evolution. And you keep ignoring the other 99.9999% of life on Earth. >Even many >lower animals What are "lower" animals? >have organs that are similar to organs in chimps and humans. Yep. There is that common descent thing. If you tell me an organism has mammaries I know it has hair and a jaw and calcified bones. There is a pattern to the similarity, one that screams common descent. >I read an article Years ago, of course, and you don't remember from where or what it actually said. I am tired of all these "articles" you once read. How about you find some research from the last 10 years. Find me any creationist research from the last 10 years, any at all. >indicating that they are hoping to inject human genetic >material into pigs with hopes of making use of hearts from those pigs in >people. I hope those experiments are successful. > >> >> >Evolutionists >> >refer to it as the "common ancestor" of monkeys and people. >> >> What "it"? >> >> >However, none >> >of the bones of that common ancestor have ever been found. >> >> There are millions of species around today, not just humans. We have >> evidence for the common descent of all life, not simply of humans and >> chimps. We have lots of bones of ancestors of humans. What exactly are >> we missing that we would expect to find? > >I have no problem with the common descent related to various types of >plants and animals. The problem that I have is relation to human descent. So all the other life on Earth evolved, including chimps and gorillas. But somehow not humans. Is the Earth billions of years old for the rest of life, but only a few thousand for humans? >A represents the common descent of mammals I hope you mean animals. >B represents the common descent of plants >C represents the common descent of humans >Just because A and B is true, it does not mean that C is true. A and B cover all of the life on Earth. Humans are more similar to chimps than we are to anything else on Earth. Humans and chimps are more similar to other apes than we are to anything on Earth. Apes are more similar to other mammals than we are to anything else on Earth. Mammals are more similar to other vertebrates than we are to anything else on Earth. Humans are not an odd outlier, we are deeply embedded in the tree. There is no evidence that suggest otherwise. [snip] >> ROTFLMAO. I see, so "big" means "Neanderthal" which means "diseased". >> I guess if you close your eyes everything looks the same. > >There are pictures in various books related to what Neanderthals looked >like. I have seen people that looked like those pictures. > I believe the >wrestlers name may have been "Andree the Giant". You may want to google >that term and find a picture of that wrestler. I am quite familiar with Andre and he did not look like a Neanderthal and certainly did not look like he had rickets. [snip] -- 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 Brian E. Clark Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 In article <1178482176.288791.80400 @y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Anna R., D.Min. said... > Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There > is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution. All you've done is to say, "I don't know the answer" in way that fools you into thinking you do know the answer. Your would-be alternative has no descriptive or predictive value. It cannot us what types of fossils will be found with what other types, or how long we can expect to wait until the majority of an insect population becomes immune to a given pesticide. It cannot explain the distribution of animals in Asia, or the reason many butterflies have eyespots on their wings. No theory of creation ever set forth the answer to why birds on remote islands become flightless, or why mammalian predators seem to be more intelligent than their prey. As a theory of life, Creationism has nothing whatsoever to recommend it, except for its titanic vindication of (some) people's sense that their lives matter on a cosmic scale. -- ----------- Brian E. Clark Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 07 May 2007 09:40:55 -0400, John Baker wrote: >>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> Now you've got it. > 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. Can't say I'd disagree, but there's always some twit who can't tell the difference between a them - "He's got a PhD in chemistry, he must know what he's doing." Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Codebreaker wrote: > On May 7, 5:14 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote: >> So their alternate 'theory' that they want to replace the theory of >> evolution involves a sky pixy and a bunch of nonverifyable >> 'miracles'... >> ID are the first two letters in IDIOT ! > > > Christianity is verifiable. It is grounded "Verifiable"? Even if that was applicable ("Falsifiable" is the trick), it is not. See below. > on Jesus claimed as Christ. and Christ was fortold by Moses > and the rest of the Old covenant prophets Anecdotal evidence is worth something only if written on paper. And what you actually use is the paper.... > His life and resurrection was preached to the whole world. Wrong, but never mind... > So basically, what was foretold in the Old Covenant > was verified by Some disciples in Jerusalem. > It fits in the History of the world. > > IMPOSTOR SCIENCE IS EVOLUTION > No use. Another ID-Nut. Presenting only anecdotal evidence which (if written on paper) can only be used as toilet paper..... Anecdotal evidence is no use in science. It might spawn some ideas (as Sci-Fi did and does), but if that's your only evidence you can just flush it down the drain.... Tokay -- A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Matt Silberstein wrote: > On 7 May 2007 13:20:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , Codebreaker > <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in > <1178569210.385998.87990@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On May 6, 7:52 pm, Matt Silberstein >> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> On 6 May 2007 16:04:50 -0700, in alt.atheism , Tohu.B...@hotmail.com >>> >>> in <1178492690.858224.201...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> On May 6, 6:59 pm, Matt Silberstein >>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min." >>>>> <annarober...@yahoo.com> in >>>>> <1178482176.288791.80...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>>> Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There >>>>>> is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution. >>>> You mean the FAITH of Evolution? >>> I offered a prediction below. How is that faith? >>> >>>> Yes, there is an alternative to it, or should I say >>>> something similar to it? I was thinking of Hinduism >>>>> How is that an alternative? Evolution is a predictive model of the >>>>> change in populations of living things over time. Here is an example >>>>> of an evolutionary prediction, perhaps you can provide the " God in >>>>> His awesome power and authority" alternative. >>>>> Suppose we have a small island near a large body of land. Using >>>>> evolution I can predict things about the biota on that island. Can you >>>>> provide your "God" prediction? >> >> Don't just predict... > > But that is what scientific models do. > >> Tell us the names of their forefathers who >> evolved >>from chimps, the places of their burials and why did not document >> their "eVOLvition" > > How about you give that information for your ancestors for the last 10 > generations. If you can do that I will pick up the conversation from > there. > > I have trouble going further than 5 generations... and I have an aunt that loves genealogy. Anyone that wants to know the name of the forefather that evolved from "chimps" just shows he/she has no f.....g idea what he/she is talking about. So, if he actually can produce those 10 generations, I am on your side. Tokay -- A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Codebreaker wrote: > On May 7, 4:59 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: >> On May 7, 3:25 pm, Fartbreaker <Fartbrea...@bigsecret.com> lied: >> [snip] >> >>> Observed by who??? You are being a false witness. >>> Did you ever observed a chimp turning into a human being? >> No, but we see you turning into a jackass every time you post >> something and turning into a chicken every time I challenge you. > > > I thought it takes 3 billions days or hours for one > specy to evolve into another. > I have been posting here for only 5 years. So does your > chicken have feet or legs? > >> [snip] >> >> Budikka > > This is ridiculous. Look up "species" in your favorite dictionary one of these days.... I use wiki, but that's just me. Maybe then you will understand what evolution is all about. And if you are at it, look up "time" as well.... Ah, no use. He has only two brain cells more than the common chicken, and that is only so he does not crap in the yard..... Tokay -- A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On Mon, 07 May 2007 09:40:55 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> > wrote: > - Refer: <53bu3317mvqbdl9ojk4vah1lv6olefs4pb@4ax.com> >> 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. > > Quite. > Douglas Adams was more of a scientist than many who are supposedly > qualified. > sigh Too true. If I - as an atheist - would want something like a mesiah, DNA would come pretty damn close. That would contradict the idea, so I just salute him. Tokay -- A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 8, 4:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Yes, I believe that God created Adam, Eve, lots of plants and lots of > animals. I realize that I don't have a video tape to prove it. The only > evidence is fossil evidence. If you visit the ICR website, you could > purchase at least one those books that discuss the fossil evidence. Of > course, I doubt that you would ever read that book. You know very well that fossil evidence proves evolution: if god created life as is then there shouldn't even be ancient fossils. > You stated that there > is evidence that chimps and humans share a common genetic ancestor. It's > my opinion that the reason that chimps and humans are similar is because > God made humans and he made chimps. It would have been logical for God to > use some of the same genetic materials to make humans and monkeys and > apes. One of the reasons that I concentrate on how life began on this > planet is because it is the main difference between creation science and > evolution. If evolutionists are incorrect related to how life began on > this planet, it means they are also wrong about some of the aspects of > evolution such as what Matt refers to as "common descent". That doesn't follow. For starters, evolution doesn't say anything about how life came to be on this planet. Even if you want to believe that your god was responsible for the "spark of life" that began life on Earth, it still doesn't change the fact that men and gorillas share a common ancestor. The fact is that human beings are gentically 97% identical to gorillas, skeltons of human ancestors have been found dating back 1 million, 2 million, even 3 million years and clearly show how human beings have evolved over time, a gorilla skeleton would look no different to an untrained eye to that of a human skeleton of the same size, gorilla behavior in the wild is no different than that of what human tribal behaviour would be like if we didn't have language and were thus unable to share knowledge, chimpanzees can be taught sign language and not only communicate with people but also teach sign language to their offspring, the human body has the same number of pores as that of a gorilla's and the fact that people of different races demonstrate adaptions to their environment shows that evolution continues to this day and that it's not a process with an end result. That just covers the descent of man. In addition to this evidence there is the fossil evidence which dates back billions of years and clearly shows that life began with simple organisms and that more complex creatures appeared later: even transitional forms can be seen, including fish with legs and dinosaurs with wings. To say that "no species has ever been observed to transform from one to another" is a lie because it can be observed in the fossil records. We also observe species going extinct in the wild, confirming the mechanism of evolution, namely natural selection: species who cannot adapt to changes in the environment do die out and those with the advantages necessary to survive do survive. This is demonstrated most clearly with viruses and bacteria: viruses DO mutate to form new viruses and bacteria DOES survive if it has the advantage of, say, being resistant to a given anti-biotic. To claim that God is creating new deadly viruses and making bacteria resistant to anti-biotics is to say that God is a mass murderer. Evolution is not just a theory. It is an observed fact. Martin 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.