Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 2:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183367816.929104.115...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"? > > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD Can't answer the question, Jason? > You already know that we believe that God created mankind "Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities." Sigmund Freud, A Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35) "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." Sigmund Freud, ibid. You've been diagnosed as being insane, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 2:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183368314.787206.264...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I > > > know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County > > > located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in that town. > > > We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The > > > court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not take me. > > > After the trial, he was placed in prison. > > > You mean, after somebody got murdered in your town, you arrested him, > > tried him and put him in jail. Jason, that's just mean. You're > > supposed to do an autopsy on him to determine cause of death and then > > track down and try his killer. > The police arrested the person that murdered the man. In this case "him" > referred to the murderer. I should have explained it more fully so that > you would not have been confused. I see. Perhaps we need a program that can translate from Jasonese to English. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183409470.998394.202050@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > <snip> > > > > You mention that it takes millions of years before a fox could evolve into > > another type of creature. The reality is that foxes have NOT evolved in > > the past several thousand years. Foxes are mentioned in the Old > > Testament--Judges 15:4. the Book of Judges was written prior to 1004 B.C. > > At the very least, the foxes that are living today should be radically > > different than the foxes that existed in 1004 B.C. The reality is that > > they are still foxes. You mentioned a child growing up--that is about 17 > > years. In this case, we will are not discussing 17 years but thousands of > > years. In much the same way that a child will change in 17 years--the > > foxes should have changed within thousands of years. The reality is that > > they are still foxes. > > Here is a snippet from the Evolution of the Horse article on > Wikipedia: > > "Detailed fossil information on the rate and distribution of new equid > species has also revealed that the progression between species was not > as smooth and consistent as was once believed: although some > transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual > progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to > Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt and sudden in geologic time, taking > place over only a few million years." > > Jason, please read that sentence several times until you understand > this fact: biologists describe the evolution of one species > (Epihippus) into another (Mesohippus) as "relatively abrupt and > sudden" because it took "only a few million years". Compare that to > the few thousand years that have gone by since Biblical times. We > should expect to see _no visible evolution in any mammal in only a few > thousand years_!!! > > - Bob T. Bob T., I understand your point. However, I doubt that you understand the points that I made in my posts. I continue to believe that God made a horse-like creature like the Hyracotherium and at least one or more dog-like creatures. They eventually evolved into the various types of horses and dogs we have today. We can examine the same data related to horse evolution. You believe the evidence proves evolution and I will look at that evidence and believe that it proves creation science. Please tell me the name of the animal that the Hyracotherium evolved from? Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 3:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183401575.719720.76...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved > > into the modern horse: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse > > Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other > animals that are NOT FOXES today. Once again, Jason proves his illiteracy. US: There is evidence supporting our position! Jason: Yes, I agree, but there's no evidence supporting your position. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <SOqdnYaYk-z25RTbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1183401575.719720.76400@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > (snip) > >> You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present day > >> animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a > >> creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer is: > >> yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved > >> into the modern horse: > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse > > > > Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other > > animals that are NOT FOXES today. > (snip) > > How can you know what something is evolving into from a look > at it only at a single point in time? If you could jump to > a a few thousand years into the future, you might not > recognize some of the offspring of today's foxes. Since we > don't have a time machine to examine the future, the only > way we can observe lines changing over time is to review the > record of Earth's history. We can look back in history one thousand or more years and find out that foxes were mentioned. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:10:59 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5esmbbF3a2kqfU1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >snip > >> The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from being >> taught. The reason is because they believe that the children would realize >> that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. > >Really? Got a cite to back up that assertion? Yep. He wrote it on the padded walls with his own excrement. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <f6boja$h19$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > In article <Jason-0207071332240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: > > In article <f6bkdv$ja5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, > > cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > > > > In article <1183367816.929104.115300@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > John Popelish > > > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > >>> or reverse evolution > > > > > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? > > > > > > > > > > > an example: > > > > > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells > > > > > > > > > > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the > > > > > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular. > > > > > > > > > > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example > > > > > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary > > > > > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you > > > > > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it. > > > > > > > > > > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per > > evolution) > > > > > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted > > > > > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells. > > > > > > > > > > Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing > > > > > population, that spreads through that population by natural > > > > > selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no > > > > > bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution > > > > > has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect. > > > > > It is the process that changes life forms as time passes. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > > > > >>>>> reproduction) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > > > > > >>>>> survival) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > > > > > >>>>> function) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > > > > > >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) > > > > > > > > > > Those are some of the major changes that took place in the > > > > > family line ending with you and me. Other changes took > > > > > place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day > > > > > parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss > > > > > of function, because their host provides such a special and > > > > > consistent environment that abilities that were useful to > > > > > their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But > > > > > losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution, > > > > > but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining > > > > > something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need > > > > > because they had a different environment, is continuing > > > > > evolution. > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is the process that changes living forms during > > > > > the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and > > > > > somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for > > > > > survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler > > > > > is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing > > > > > either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger > > > > > and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler > > > > > variant, that each take advantage of different niches. > > > > > > > > > > I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start > > > > > out with the preconceived notion that all things are > > > > > preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is > > > > > intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of > > > > > the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and > > > > > really try to imagine things happening for no other reason > > > > > than because they can happen. > > > > > > > > Exactly! How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"? > > > > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD > > > > > > > > > Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude > > > estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd > > > say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate. > > > > > > > > > -- cary > > > > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct--that is a very good track record. > > More than 99 out of every 100 is not a good track record at all. > Would you hire a programmer whose code worked one time in a hundred? > > > > God left mankind in charge of the world--in many cases--mankind is to > > blame for the extinctions. > > Since the vast majority of all species were extinct long before > we evolved, that's not really the case. > > At the end of the Permian, an estimated 70% of all land > species and 96% of all marine species vanished, for > unknown reasons. > > We have had nothing like such an effect. > > > -- cary The good news is that we still have millions of species of plants and animals. I wish that mosquitoes would become extinct. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 4:12 am, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > In article <1183367099.938399.69...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> writes: > > On Jul 2, 12:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1183347076.966093.157...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 2, 10:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Question for group: > > > > > Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies. > > > > > If that is true > > > > > There's no IF about it. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > > > > > "The third, final and most convincing explanation of > > > > multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory which was proposed by > > > > Haeckel in 1874. The theory claims that the symbiosis of many > > > > organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which > > > > suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular > > > > organism. At least some, presumably land-evolved, multicellularity > > > > occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (i.e., cellular slime > > > > molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those which > > > > evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a > > > > consequence of cells failing to separate following division[2]. The > > > > mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as > > > > incomplete cytokinesis, though multicelluarity is also typically > > > > consided to involve cellular differentiation[3] > > > > > "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been > > > > seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different > > > > protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which > > > > groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that > > > > moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become > > > > slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial > > > > organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which > > > > consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8 > > > > asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell, > > > > however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular > > > > organism in its own right. > > > > > "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that > > > > Multicellular organisms evolved." > > > > > Martin > > > > Martin, > > > These are the steps that you posted: > > > > > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > > > > > > reproduction) > > > > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > > > > > > > survival) > > > > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > > > > > > > function) > > > > > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > > > > > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > > > > > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > > > > > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > > > > > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > > > > > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) > > > > I did not notice in the above steps any mention of cell colonies evolving > > > into non-colonies. According to the steps mentioned above, it seems to me > > > that the cell colonies should evolve into a multicelled life form. In this > > > case, the cell colonies became single cells. Would this be called > > > de-evolution or reverse evolution? > > > The answer is that you have no idea what you are talking about. > > Ameobas are single celled creatures: the fact that they can work in > > tandem supports the cell colony theory. Please read the articles that > > you snip and post from. > > > There's no such thing as "de-evolution". A whale is a mammal, not a > > fish, the fact that it swims in water not withstanding. Quite > > honestly, Jason, your ignorance makes me want to cry. > > On the other hand, organisms DO lose previous traits to adapt > to new envirments. Internal parasites have widely done this, > to resounding success. I really don't know at all what Jason > is after here, but I wonder if tapeworms and blind cave animals > would fit his request for examples of "reverse evolution". Sure and whales have no legs. But that's just another mutation. I'm more impressed by the fact that whales have fins than the fact that they don't have legs. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183411582.658407.242230@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:44 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <uqednUmn_vW8yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > You already know that we believe that God created mankind; > > > > some plants and some animals. > > > > > Yet you have failed at every opportunity to provide any proof of > > > that this god exists. Until you prove the god exists you cannot > > > claim it created anything. You have even less proof for a god > > > than what proof you believe there isn't for evolution. > > > > In much the same way that evolutionists take a look at plants and animals > > living today to find evidence of evolution, the advocates of creation > > science look at plants and animals living today as proof for creation > > science and ID. > > Not the same way at all. Biologists look at plants and animals, > fossils and genes, and see overwhelming evidence that evolution > occurred - regardless of what they believed before. Creationists > begin with the assumption that the Bible is literally true, and filter > everything through that assumption. > > > > When I find evidence of a life form not progressing from step 1 to step 4 > > as is predicted by evolution theory--I see that as evidence of creation > > science. In this case, single celled life forms formed into a cell colony. > > However, instead of evolving into a multicelled life form (step 4), the > > cell colony changed back into single cells that were not part of a colony. > > That is evidence (at least in this case), that the cell colony did not > > evolve into a multicelled life form. I doubt that you understand my point > > since you have on your evolution tinted glasses and as a result can not > > look at this evidence from a creation science point of view. Summary: this > > evidence supports creation science and does not support evolution. If the > > the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life form--that would have > > supported evolution theory. > > You really don't understand evolution, do you? There is no > requirement that a cell colony evolve into a genuine multi-cellular > creature. Most living things that have ever lived never had more than > one cell. By the way, be thankful that _some_ cell colonies evolved > further than that - they are our ancestors. > > You seem to think that evolution has a direction, an ever-upward > striving of sorts... it does not. Creatures are just as likely to > evolve into a simpler form, if that has survival value. > > - Bob T. Bob, Thanks for your post. An amoeba is an example. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <maSdnVNWsvmdExTbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <uqednUin_vUOyxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David > > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >>> In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, > >>> "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they > >>>>> attacked Galileo was because they did not want any > >>>>> competition? > >>>> > >>>> Is that the reason you attack evolution? > >>> > >>> > >>> No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. > >>> > >> > >> Why should your religious beliefs be taught in public > >> schools? It is the law in this country that religious > >> beliefs are not to be taught in public schools. Don't our > >> laws mean anything to you? > > > > > > According to the advocates of Intelligent Design..... > > Do you really think I care what lies they tell? Answer the > question though.... don't our laws mean anything to you? Yes--that is the reason they removed all mention of God, Jesus, religion and scriptures from the textbook and curriculum guide. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <buvi83phng0f6hr6893ilg5v6cvdsbbhdl@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0207071150300001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they > >> > attacked Galileo was because they did not want any > >> > competition? > >> > >> Is that the reason you attack evolution? > > > >No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's my opinion > >(and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was taught--that most > >of the children would agree that ID made more sense than evolution. > > Particularly when the teacher explains that ID is totally unsupported by > any scientific evidence and was invented by religious zealots who want > to get around the First Amendment. Furthermore, these zealots have > written many books full of lies to try to con children into believing > these religious doctrines. > > >Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural Selection. > >They do not support common descent or abiogenesis. > > You are full of lies. Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have been? Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement from a god. source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with the advocates of evolution. It also explains why evolutionists rush to court every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. They don't want competition. jason Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have >been? They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth is a spheroid. > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other >life-forms without any involvement from a god. >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with the >advocates of evolution. So what? > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. No it doesn't. Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth Theory" in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. You can't say no, Jason. Saying no means that you're a hypocrite. 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 Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183424398.458591.242270@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 2:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1183368314.787206.264...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I > > > > know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County > > > > located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in that town. > > > > We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The > > > > court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not take me. > > > > After the trial, he was placed in prison. > > > > > You mean, after somebody got murdered in your town, you arrested him, > > > tried him and put him in jail. Jason, that's just mean. You're > > > supposed to do an autopsy on him to determine cause of death and then > > > track down and try his killer. > > > The police arrested the person that murdered the man. In this case "him" > > referred to the murderer. I should have explained it more fully so that > > you would not have been confused. > > I see. Perhaps we need a program that can translate from Jasonese to > English. > > Martin It's not needed--I'll explain anything you do not understand. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 4:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183403637.939300.226...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > > > You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present day > > > > animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a > > > > creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer is: > > > > yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved > > > > into the modern horse: > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse > > > > Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other > > > animals that are NOT FOXES today. > > > We do not know what foxes, humans, or redwood trees will evolve into > > someday in the future. We cannot collect evidence about what will > > happen in the future - all we can do is analyze what has happened in > > the past. What does the past tell us? It tells us that every living > > thing on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor, and that some of us > > living things have changed very greatly over time from that ancestor. > > > It seems to me that you have a mental block about the time scales > > involved here. The amount of evolution that a species undergoes in a > > single generation is miniscule. There is no reason to expect foxes to > > evolve into anything non-fox-like within the time frame of human > > history. Come back in a million years, though, and you will see any > > number of species have evolved into something different from their > > present-day forms. > > > It's like watching a child grow up. Your question is like asking "How > > can you say your child is growing up? I saw her yesterday and she > > doesn't look any different. I see no evidence that your child is > > changing into an adult!" > You appear to not be able to see it from the creation science point of > view. On the contrary, he NAILED the creationist point of view. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f6bkdv$ja...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, > c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > In article <1183367816.929104.115...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"? > > > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD > > > Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude > > estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd > > say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate. > > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct But billions have. > --that is a very good track record. No, it isn't. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <uqednUmn_vW8yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > You already know that we believe that God created mankind; > > > some plants and some animals. > > > Yet you have failed at every opportunity to provide any proof of > > that this god exists. Until you prove the god exists you cannot > > claim it created anything. You have even less proof for a god > > than what proof you believe there isn't for evolution. > > In much the same way that evolutionists take a look at plants and animals > living today to find evidence of evolution, the advocates of creation > science look at plants and animals living today as proof for creation > science and ID. It isn't "much the same way". People didn't look to find evidence of evolution so much as open their eyes and see that it was there. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > evidence supports creation science and does not support evolution. If the > the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life form--that would have > supported evolution theory. Nice to see you admit that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8 asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell, however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular organism in its own right. "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that Multicellular organisms evolved." Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 4:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <uqednUin_vUOyxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@sti.net>, "David > > > V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >>> \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they > > >>> attacked Galileo was because they did not want any > > >>> competition? > > > >> Is that the reason you attack evolution? > > > > No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. > > > Why should your religious beliefs be taught in public schools? > > It is the law in this country that religious beliefs are not to > > be taught in public schools. Don't our laws mean anything to you? > > According to the advocates of Intelligent Design, God, Religion, Jesus and > scriptures are not mentioned in the textbook or curriculum guide. > > The term "intelligent designer" is used instead of the term "God". So it's just a substitution. Nice to see you admit that. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 4:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <uqednUun_vV_yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <rtOdndOu0btmphTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>Jason wrote: > > > >>>In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it > > >>>happened, a cell colony would have to remain a cell colony > > >>>before the next step of evolution would take place--true or > > >>>false? > > > >>Of course that is false..... but then you know that. Why do you > > >>insist on making up things and them actually believing them? > > > > These are the steps--note the first 4 steps. > > > Those are not the "steps." Evolution does not work that way. > > There are no "steps." > > You will have to discuss your point with Martin since he was the person > that posted these steps. What he means is that it is a continuous process. (That is not true either though: every generation is a step. There actually are a finite number of steps from one celled animal to human being.) Martin > > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > > > > reproduction) > > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > > > > > survival) > > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > > > > > function) > > > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > > > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > > > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > > > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > > > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > > > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 7:43 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <uqednUun_vV_yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Those are not the "steps." Evolution does not work that way. > >>There are no "steps." > > > You will have to discuss your point with Martin since he was the person > > that posted these steps. > > He was trying to explain something that went over your head. Actually his claim was that scientists couldn't explain how mankind evolved from simple cells and I explained it to him in ten easy steps. Was I wrong to do so? Martin Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 22:47:39 UTC, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 02 Jul 2007 18:48:25 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism > "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote in > <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-dGd00lggsxxM@M>: > >... > >Disagree: They were quite happy to compete with each other in skill at > >interpreting Aristotle and the Bible. And Galileo was a duly educated, > >gainfully employed academic, not some interloper who might open the > >floodgates to hordes of Mexi^H^H^H^H mere artisans without enough Latin. > >(OK, he was criticized for stepping outside of this field, but after all, > >a Grand Duke had appointed him a "philosopher", and how more Establishment > >can you get?) > >... > > Isn't it nice how easy it is to explain history by reference to current > political problems? Too easy. Regrettably easy. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 9:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <buvi83phng0f6hr6893ilg5v6cvdsbb...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0207071150300...@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they > > >> > attacked Galileo was because they did not want any > > >> > competition? > > > >> Is that the reason you attack evolution? > > > >No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's my opinion > > >(and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was taught--that most > > >of the children would agree that ID made more sense than evolution. > > > Particularly when the teacher explains that ID is totally unsupported by > > any scientific evidence and was invented by religious zealots who want > > to get around the First Amendment. Furthermore, these zealots have > > written many books full of lies to try to con children into believing > > these religious doctrines. > > > >Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural Selection. > > >They do not support common descent or abiogenesis. > > > You are full of lies. > > Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 > years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have > been? 35 years, huh? You're 57 so you were 22 back then. So you never learned about evolution in high school. You obviously should have. > Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other > life-forms without any involvement from a god. > source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 According to the 2005 American Community Survey (See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0101&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_) 16.6% of the American population is over sixty. By your own admission, these people never learned evolution is high school. The number of people who know the truth can only go up as people your age and older pass on. Martin Quote
Guest Cary Kittrell Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <Jason-0207071812350001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: > In article <f6boja$h19$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, > cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > > In article <Jason-0207071332240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: > > > In article <f6bkdv$ja5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, > > > cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <1183367816.929104.115300@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin > > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > > On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > > John Popelish > > > > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > >>> or reverse evolution > > > > > > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > an example: > > > > > > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells > > > > > > > > > > > > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the > > > > > > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example > > > > > > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary > > > > > > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you > > > > > > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per > > > evolution) > > > > > > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted > > > > > > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into > single cells. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing > > > > > > population, that spreads through that population by natural > > > > > > selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no > > > > > > bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution > > > > > > has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect. > > > > > > It is the process that changes life forms as time passes. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > > > > > >>>>> reproduction) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each > other for > > > > > > >>>>> survival) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated > according to > > > > > > >>>>> function) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > > > > > > >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) > > > > > > > > > > > > Those are some of the major changes that took place in the > > > > > > family line ending with you and me. Other changes took > > > > > > place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day > > > > > > parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss > > > > > > of function, because their host provides such a special and > > > > > > consistent environment that abilities that were useful to > > > > > > their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But > > > > > > losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution, > > > > > > but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining > > > > > > something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need > > > > > > because they had a different environment, is continuing > > > > > > evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is the process that changes living forms during > > > > > > the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and > > > > > > somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for > > > > > > survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler > > > > > > is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing > > > > > > either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger > > > > > > and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler > > > > > > variant, that each take advantage of different niches. > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start > > > > > > out with the preconceived notion that all things are > > > > > > preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is > > > > > > intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of > > > > > > the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and > > > > > > really try to imagine things happening for no other reason > > > > > > than because they can happen. > > > > > > > > > > Exactly! How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"? > > > > > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude > > > > estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd > > > > say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- cary > > > > > > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct--that is a very good > track record. > > > > More than 99 out of every 100 is not a good track record at all. > > Would you hire a programmer whose code worked one time in a hundred? > > > > > > > God left mankind in charge of the world--in many cases--mankind is to > > > blame for the extinctions. > > > > Since the vast majority of all species were extinct long before > > we evolved, that's not really the case. > > > > At the end of the Permian, an estimated 70% of all land > > species and 96% of all marine species vanished, for > > unknown reasons. > > > > We have had nothing like such an effect. > > > > > > -- cary > > The good news is that we still have millions of species of plants and > animals. I wish that mosquitoes would become extinct. > > We do indeed. Far more, I am sure, than anyone suspects. -- cary Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have > >been? > > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth is a > spheroid. > > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with the > >advocates of evolution. > > So what? > > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. > > No it doesn't. > > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth Theory" > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed by laughter. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 9:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183424398.458591.242...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1183368314.787206.264...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 2, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I > > > > > know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County > > > > > located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in > that town. > > > > > We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The > > > > > court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not > take me. > > > > > After the trial, he was placed in prison. > > > > > You mean, after somebody got murdered in your town, you arrested him, > > > > tried him and put him in jail. Jason, that's just mean. You're > > > > supposed to do an autopsy on him to determine cause of death and then > > > > track down and try his killer. > > > > The police arrested the person that murdered the man. In this case "him" > > > referred to the murderer. I should have explained it more fully so that > > > you would not have been confused. > > > I see. Perhaps we need a program that can translate from Jasonese to > > English. > > It's not needed--I'll explain anything you do not understand. It wouldn't be necessary if you could speak proper English in the first place. I guess grammar is something else you never learned in school. 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.