Guest Free Lunch Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:15:22 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0905071615230001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <5aem1dF2mm3ncU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> snip >> > >> > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of >> > evolution. Why would you think that it cannot? All of the chemical processes in life are completely consistent with chemical processes in general. Life is just a self-sustaining biochemical process. It's nothing special in a chemical way. >> That doesn't have anything to do with evolution. >> >> And evolution doesn't need you to advocate it. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Darwin discussed how life came to be in his book. Please tell us the name of the book, the edition and the page. >Believe it or not, when >I took a college biology glass in 1971, the professor taught us about the >primordial soup theory. I have no idea what _you_ mean by primordial soup, so I have no idea whether I would believe you or not. >He claimed that was how life began on this earth. >I wish that I had asked that professor--How did that primordial soup come >to be? There's actually some very good cosmology evidence about the beginning of the universe, stars and planets. You might want to look in that area. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:28:42 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1178712248.723752.207090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 9, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > It's not a threat. The Bible clearly states that after we die, we will all >> > stand before the judgement seat of God. I'm looking forward to it. >> >> Unfortunately when you die everything will end and you won't even have >> the satisfaction of finally realizing that your faith was based on a >> lie. >> >> Martin > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Martin, >If I really believed there was no God, I would commit suicide if my doctor >told me that I had cancer and needed to have chemo. and radiation for >three or more months. Sucks to be you. Don't go confusing yourself with everyone else, ok? > Perhaps the increase in atheism is correlated to the >rapid increase in the suicide rate. No. 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 Don Kresch Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > Don, >> > It was actually a warning. >> >> Jason, >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >> >> Martin > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Martin, >It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. Oddly enough, I've never been in trouble with the cops. And I'm an atheist. Fancy that. Looks like you need the carrot-stick method. I don't. I'm better than you. 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 vivapadrepio@aol.com Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 On May 6, 4:01�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, "Anna R., D.Min."<annarober...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:15:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0905071615230001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <5aem1dF2mm3ncU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> snip >> > >> > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of >> > evolution. >> >> That doesn't have anything to do with evolution. >> >> And evolution doesn't need you to advocate it. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Darwin discussed how life came to be in his book. To be precise he has a paragraph of speculation on the subject. >Believe it or not, when >I took a college biology glass in 1971, the professor taught us about the >primordial soup theory. He claimed that was how life began on this earth. >I wish that I had asked that professor--How did that primordial soup come >to be? That is not a biology question. The Big Bang theory is the best current explanation. That takes us about to a tiny bit of second after the start of the Universe. And if you ask where that came from then I will ask you where g(G)od(s) came from. And you will then use special pleading and say that g(G)od(s) have existed forever. We have been here before. Science offers a detailed narrative of the history of the universe, based on observation and using tested predictive models. You have "God did it" as an answer for each question. -- 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 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:28:42 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0905071128430001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <1178712248.723752.207090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 9, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > It's not a threat. The Bible clearly states that after we die, we will all >> > stand before the judgement seat of God. I'm looking forward to it. >> >> Unfortunately when you die everything will end and you won't even have >> the satisfaction of finally realizing that your faith was based on a >> lie. >> >> Martin > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Martin, >If I really believed there was no God, I would commit suicide if my doctor >told me that I had cancer and needed to have chemo. and radiation for >three or more months. Funny, I know atheists who have not done that. Perhaps the increase in atheism is correlated to the >rapid increase in the suicide rate. What rapid increase? BTW, I know theists who have killed themselves. And it is kind of silly to tell lots of people, who don't seem suicidal, that their ideas lead to suicide. -- 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 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:07:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0905071607390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: [snip] >I agree that pygmy child bones look like other human child bones. You >missed my point. My point was that Nanderthals MAY have been a race of >people. That is not what the experts who actually have seen the evidence say. Why should I give any credence to your empty speculation over their work? >That's the reason they were able to produce offspring when they >mated with Cro-Magnums. If they did, so what? Horses can produce offspring with donkeys, but horses are not donkeys. Evolution theory predicts this. Evolution says that there is stepwise change, not sudden magical differences. Species slowly separate and that means that there will be times when there is cross-breeding, at least potentially. -- 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 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 In article <v88443lhmrb9j8qv8693avbpntf7bnj7j0@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2007 12:37:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) in > <Jason-0905071237140001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > >In article <f1t3ih$717$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > Do you believe that if I had some bones from an African > >> > pygmy child and I took those bones to a scientist or doctor that he would > >> > be able to tell me that those bones were from an African pygmy child or > >> > just that they were the bones from an African child. Do you see my point? > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Yes, he would be able to tell the difference. There are distinct > >> differences between adult bones and juvenile bones (such as the head of > >> a baby is a lot larger in proportion to its body size than an adult's > >> is, etc.) > > > >I was referring to comparing the bones of a pygmy CHILD to an African > >CHILD. The bones of those children (if they were the same age) would about > >the same size. I doubt that 100 experts would all be able to come to the > >same conclusion as to which bones were African pygmy bones or African > >bones. > >jaso > > I have news for you: you can't diagnose that someone was African from > the bones. And pygmy human child bones look like other human child > bones. And pygmy human adult bones are clearly human but smaller. > People who actually do this work can figure out quite a bit from the > bones, you might want to learn about this before posting. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I agree that pygmy child bones look like other human child bones. You missed my point. My point was that Nanderthals MAY have been a race of people. That's the reason they were able to produce offspring when they mated with Cro-Magnums. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 In article <5aem1dF2mm3ncU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > > snip > > > > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of > > evolution. > > That doesn't have anything to do with evolution. > > And evolution doesn't need you to advocate it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Darwin discussed how life came to be in his book. Believe it or not, when I took a college biology glass in 1971, the professor taught us about the primordial soup theory. He claimed that was how life began on this earth. I wish that I had asked that professor--How did that primordial soup come to be? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 In article <e18443dhckrckn6nvso2hrumuc7vqn6p9b@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2007 12:30:46 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) in > <Jason-0905071230460001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > >In article <922443lfvcimc2s7g1s46943dan9rrebip@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:33:20 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) in > >> <Jason-0905071133210001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> > >> >Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of > >> >evolution. One poster claimed that life could evolve from amino acids. > >> >I challenge anyone to create amino acids from nothing. Even Darwin > >> >believed that God got the process going by creating life. > >> > >> Not from nothing, but amino acids do spontaneously form under the > >> conditions of the early Earth. This was demonstrated decades ago. Care > >> to move those goalposts? > > > >Yes, let's move that goalpost. Take those amino acids and check them once > >a year for the next thousand years and see if any living cells evolve from > >those amino acids. > > > Ok, so now you think it should take thousands of years for life to > form. So it is not a surprise that we have not seen it happen in the > last 50. So what is your problem? You asked for amino acids to form, > we have seen that. You think life forming would take a very long time, > we haven't had that much time to look. So what is it that you would > expect to see that we have not seen? What is the scientific problem > here? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's simple, in order for the theory of evolution to make sense, we had to have a beginning point. That's the main problem that I have with the theory of evolution. I have yet to read or learn about any experiments that have proved that life can evolve from non-life. You mentioned that life may have evolved from amino acids. If that is true, prove it in a laboratory. Until you do it, don't expect me or anyone else to believe that life evolved from amino acids. I believe that one of the main reasons that biology professors no longer discuss the primordial soup theory is because people like me kept demanding that scientists prove that theory in a laboratory. Since they could not prove it, they stopped teaching that theory. Quote
Guest Budikka666 Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 On May 6, 2:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: [snipped previous for brevity] > You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It > might be icr.com or icr.org All evolutionists are quite familiar with the lies and deception perpetrated by ICR and its ilk, thank you very much. You might want to visit some peer-reviewed science papers, on the other hand, because that's where the real science makes its public appearance after hard work (oftentimes many years of hard work) by real scientists in the lab, or in the field, or in theory, or in a combination of those. Science is not done in cheesey, dishonest web sites, which actually don't even pretend to offer science. All these creationist web sites can offer is instead is sour-grapes and whining about evolution. You go look at ICR's site, of AiG's (Answers in Genesis) and see if you can find anything that remotely resembles real peer-reviewed science. You'll look in vain, I guarantee it. Everything on those sites is negative, not positive. It's attacking, it's not constructing. It's ironic that they call themselves creationists, they hypocritically create nothing. Instead, they seek only to destroy the hard work of others even if they ahve to lie and deceive to do it. Real science is not done on a web site. It's done by real scientists all over the world by people of all faiths and it's published in refereed journals all over the world, where everyone can see it and check the work for themselves if they wish. > 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. They specifically do not tell you how life came to be on this planet. If you ask them how it came about all they can tell you is "godidit". You need a whole web site for that? They have no explanation for it other than that, which is no explanation at all. They have no science. They have zero. And they need a whole web site to tell you the cube root of squat? That's supposed to be impressive? It's nonsense. > 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. Erich von D Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 In article <mki4431tcqdskqorq76098rtemcrd05622@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> > Don, > >> > It was actually a warning. > >> > >> Jason, > >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your > >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you > >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and > >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. > >> > >> Martin > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >Martin, > >It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. > > Oddly enough, I've never been in trouble with the cops. And > I'm an atheist. Fancy that. > > Looks like you need the carrot-stick method. I don't. I'm > better than you. > > > Don ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don, Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 On Wed, 9 May 2007 13:03:42 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <u1m9h4-d2s.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >[snips] > >On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:25:30 -0700, Codebreaker wrote: > >>> 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? > >No, but since that wouldn't be consistent with what evolution is, >observing it wouldn't apply. > >Sorry, was there a point to that question? Yes, to make crudraker look even more stupid than he already does. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 13:52:51 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f1t1pj$50g$1@news04.infoave.net> >Ok, I call "Loki" on this one. It's too bloody hard to tell. There are Jehova's Witlessess who are even dumber than this terminal wally, and they are for real! -- Quote
Guest James Burns Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <rrWdnQqylcwQuNzbnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>What you see is evidence that stars exist, not how >>they came to exist. And, since your 'God' doesn't >>exist and there is no heaven hell or 'judgment seat', >>your threats don't scare us. > > > It's not a threat. The Bible clearly states that after we die, > we will all stand before the judgement seat of God. I'm > looking forward to it. By "not-a-threat", do you mean one of those say-you-love-Jesus- or-burn-for-eternity not-a-threats? You religious people can do some amazing things with words. Do another one for me, OK? Take "Chrysanthemum". Can you fold it into a crane? Jim Burns Quote
Guest James Burns Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > Jason wrote: > >> In article <5abcb1F27c3irU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >>> What's your evidence that this god exists and created anything? >> >> The best selling book in America. You can find a copy in millions >> >> of homes and in almost every library in America. Some homes have >> as many as 5 copies of that famous book. I doubt that you would >> find a book related to evolution in that many homes. I doubt >> that I would find that book in your home. > > And this proves just what exactly? Obviously, it proves Gollum died to save us all from Sauron. Jim Burns Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <mki4431tcqdskqorq76098rtemcrd05622@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > Don, >> >> > It was actually a warning. >> >> >> >> Jason, >> >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >> >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >> >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >> >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> >Martin, >> >It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. >> >> Oddly enough, I've never been in trouble with the cops. And >> I'm an atheist. Fancy that. >> >> Looks like you need the carrot-stick method. I don't. I'm >> better than you. >> >> >> Don > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Don, >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. And most of the people in prison are theists. Something like ..1% (that is, one-tenth of one percent) of the prison population are atheists. > The governor wants to spend a >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? Yes. A question for you: since the 10 demandments are in the OT, and since the OT law is supposedly no longer in force: why the brouhaha over the 10 demandments? 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 Dave Oldridge Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:16e%h.32274$qB4.23309@bignews3.bellsouth.net: > >> >> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message >> news:5a53jvF2m157uU1@mid.individual.net... >> > >> > >> > >> > Aaron Kim >> > >> > http://www.artbulla.com >> > >> > "Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >> > news:nkjq33101k5vk9o5q4dko8dg51nsbipcgp@4ax.com... >> > > On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:48:13 -0700, "Aaron Kim" >> > > <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >>THERMODYNAMICS FALSIFIES EVOLUTION >> > > >> > > No it doesn't, moron. >> > > >> > > There is a huge source of energy that causes entropy to decrease >> > > locally. It's that big yellow thing in the sky. >> > > >> > > [280 lines of stupidity and falsehood snipped] >> > > >> > > Why didn't you just post a single line saying "Aaron Kim is an >> > > in-your-face stupid, rude idiot"? >> > > >> > > It would have had exactly the same result. >> > >> > >> > Didn't you read the rest of the article? By the way, what would >> > happen > if >> > you just left your car out in the sun too long? The car's >> > condition > would >> > have greatly deteriorated according to the law of entropy. >> > >> > The Myth of the "Open System" >> > >> > Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the > second >> > law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and >> > that > "open >> > systems" are beyond the scope of this law. >> > >> > An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and >> > matter > flow >> > in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: >> > that it >> is >> > constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of > entropy >> > does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex >> > living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and >> > inanimate > structures. >> > >> > However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a >> > system has >> an >> > energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific >> mechanisms >> > are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs >> > an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to >> > convert >> the >> > energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, >> > the >> car >> > will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol. >> > >> > The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that >> > life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can >> > only be >> converted >> > into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion >> > systems >> in >> > living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive > systems >> of >> > humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy >> conversion >> > systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing >> > but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts. >> > >> > As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion >> > mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it >> > open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious >> > mechanisms could >> have >> > existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. >> > Indeed, > the >> > real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how >> > complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in >> > plants, which >> cannot >> > be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into >> > being on their own. >> > >> > The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring >> > about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the >> > temperature may > become, >> > amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by >> > itself > is >> > incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex >> > molecules of proteins, or of making proteins from the much complex >> > and deteriorated structures of cell organelles. The real and >> > essential source of this organisation at all levels is flawless >> > creation >> > >> > The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter" >> > >> > Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution >> > impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative >> > attempts > to >> > square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim >> > that evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavors show >> > that the > theory >> > of evolution faces an inescapable impasse. >> > >> > One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and >> > evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out >> > from > chaos >> > theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order > develops >> > from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can portray >> > a decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the >> > outcoming "ordering" is a proof that "matter can organize itself." >> > Since then, the concept of the "self-organization of matter" has >> > been quite popular > among >> > evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a >> > materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a materialistic >> solution >> > for the problem of life's origin. >> > >> > But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract >> > and in >> fact >> > just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive >> > deception. The deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two >> > distinct concepts, "ordered" and "organized." 143 >> > >> > We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat >> > beach > on >> > the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, >> > large > and >> > small, form bumps on the surface of the sand. >> > >> > This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system and >> > the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns >> > in the >> sand, >> > which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of >> > view, it >> can >> > set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it >> > clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If >> > we see a >> castle >> > there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because >> > the castle is an "organized" system. In other words, it possesses a >> > clear >> design >> > and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious >> > entity in > a >> > planned manner. >> > >> > The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former >> > is an organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only >> > order, brought >> about >> > by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if >> > an >> object >> > (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen >> > on > the >> > letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" >> > hundreds >> of >> > times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner > contains >> > no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex >> > chain of letters actually containing information (in other words a >> > meaningful sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of >> > intelligence is essential. >> > >> > The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When the >> > wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may >> > gather in > one >> > corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that > which >> > existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual >> > specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an >> > organized >> manner. >> > >> > This means that complex, organized systems can never come about as >> > the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order >> > can > happen >> > from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits. >> > >> > But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through >> natural >> > processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such >> > cases as examples of "self-organization". As a result of this >> > confusion of >> concepts, >> > they propose that living systems could develop their own accord >> > from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and >> > studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we >> > considered above, are based on this deceptive logic. >> > >> > The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and >> > Roger > L. >> > Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain >> > this >> fact >> > as follows:needed to take us across the >> gap >> > from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective >> replicator. >> > This principle has not yet been described in detail or >> > demonstrated, but >> it > > is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and > > self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken > > for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied > > to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.146 > > > > All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma > > that is against empirical science and the origin of living beings > > can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. > > That supernatural power is the creation of God, who created the > > entire universe from > nothing. > > Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as > > thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no > > explanation > but > > Creation. > > > I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational > discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow > of evolution. So let's see. If we cannot describe the exact process that brought gravity into being we can just ignore its effect on things that fall or things that orbit one another? > 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. When you try to deceive me with stupid lies, expect a little ridicule. It's more or less what you deserve. I mean when people try to pretend that evolution violates some law of thermodynamics, I simply ask them--challenge them--to present me with one single, necessary event in the evolution of man from microbe that represents a necessary violation of any law of thermo. I have yet to see anyone do that. What I've gotten were wild handwave claims that the WHOLE THING does violate the 2nd law. But, you see, since the 2nd law is mathematically additive, for a whole series of events to have negative entropy, at least ONE of the events by mathematical necessity MUST HAVE negative entropy. So which one? Pick any one, just so it's a SINGLE EVENT and a NECESSARY one. > 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. Well, I'm posting from alt.religion and I'm just curious about what kind of religion supports so much lying in God's name? Why would I want to worship a god that suborns behaviour like that? Wouldn't exorcism be more appropriate? -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Quote
Guest Dave Oldridge Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0705071306370001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > 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 I've actually read quite a few of their materials. They are riddled with lies and delusions. Those people are not very honest and I cannot honestly accept their claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ, who insisted on a much more scrupulous honesty than what they exhibit. > 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 So you're saying that YOUR god broke the GULO gene in all of the anthropoids and put identically broken copies in chimps and humans because....? And that He also poked a bunch of retroviruses into the same insertion spots in both genomes? Not to mention welding chromosomes together to make humans and doing a sloppy job of it, leaving the sutures in place? > 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 Well, that's because "creation science" so-called is out to mask the fact that they have no scientific cricitism of evolution by pointing out that science still does not know how life began. > 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 How can "I don't know" be incorrect? We have some hypotheses...a rather large number of them, in fact. What we don't have is a THEORY yet, because in order to formulate one, we have to continue to test the hypotheses. But the PHYSICAL evidence that chimps and humans share a common genetic ancestor can only be countered by claims that the genomes were "created" SEPERATELY by an incompetent and probably malicious "designer." I'm not prepared to bend my theology into that kind of pretzel just to satisfy a bunch of people who think ancient writings are somehow literally correct modern science, no matter how "sacred" the ancient writings are. In science we require physical EVIDENCE. You're certainly entitled to believe anything you want without it. Just don't come into these echoes and lie to me and say it's SCIENCE when it's really just your personal religious belief based on a desire, evidently, for approval from some cult leaders... At least not if you don't want to be exposed as a fibber. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:31:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0905071631400001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <e18443dhckrckn6nvso2hrumuc7vqn6p9b@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 12:30:46 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) in >> <Jason-0905071230460001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <922443lfvcimc2s7g1s46943dan9rrebip@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:33:20 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) in >> >> <Jason-0905071133210001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of >> >> >evolution. One poster claimed that life could evolve from amino acids. >> >> >I challenge anyone to create amino acids from nothing. Even Darwin >> >> >believed that God got the process going by creating life. >> >> >> >> Not from nothing, but amino acids do spontaneously form under the >> >> conditions of the early Earth. This was demonstrated decades ago. Care >> >> to move those goalposts? >> > >> >Yes, let's move that goalpost. Take those amino acids and check them once >> >a year for the next thousand years and see if any living cells evolve from >> >those amino acids. >> > >> Ok, so now you think it should take thousands of years for life to >> form. So it is not a surprise that we have not seen it happen in the >> last 50. So what is your problem? You asked for amino acids to form, >> we have seen that. You think life forming would take a very long time, >> we haven't had that much time to look. So what is it that you would >> expect to see that we have not seen? What is the scientific problem >> here? > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >It's simple, in order for the theory of evolution to make sense, we had to >have a beginning point. Why? Newton's theory of gravity, which explained the orbit of the Moon and the planets did not have to explain the origin of the planets, no less the origin of gravity. > That's the main problem that I have with the >theory of evolution. I have yet to read or learn about any experiments >that have proved that life can evolve from non-life. One more time, and please pay attention, evolution is something that happens to populations of living organisms. The phrase "evolution of life from non-life" does not make sense. If you mean the origin of life, that is a separate question from the changes to life since then. Evolution explains the last 4 or so billion years of history. >You mentioned that >life may have evolved from amino acids. No, life requires amino acids which can form naturally under the conditions of the early Earth. But that is not evolution. >If that is true, prove it in a >laboratory. It has been done. Go to http://www.sciam.org and search for Miller Urey and read the first link. >Until you do it, don't expect me or anyone else to believe >that life evolved from amino acids. I believe that one of the main reasons >that biology professors no longer discuss the primordial soup theory is >because people like me kept demanding that scientists prove that theory in >a laboratory. Since they could not prove it, they stopped teaching that >theory. How arrogant of your. The stopped teaching things when we learned more. Read up on the RNA World hypothesis. Read up on the actual research over the last 50 years: we have learned quite a bit. You seem to demand that science answer every single possible question before you will accept anything. Does an explanation of how the Sun works have to explain how it originated? -- 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 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:33:45 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0905071733450001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <eti44313uad1bjba60o43ueu0cj8t12sv0@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:15:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) in >> <Jason-0905071615230001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <5aem1dF2mm3ncU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> snip >> >> > >> >> > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of >> >> > evolution. >> >> >> >> That doesn't have anything to do with evolution. >> >> >> >> And evolution doesn't need you to advocate it. >> > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> >Darwin discussed how life came to be in his book. >> >> To be precise he has a paragraph of speculation on the subject. >> >> >Believe it or not, when >> >I took a college biology glass in 1971, the professor taught us about the >> >primordial soup theory. He claimed that was how life began on this earth. >> >I wish that I had asked that professor--How did that primordial soup come >> >to be? >> >> That is not a biology question. The Big Bang theory is the best >> current explanation. That takes us about to a tiny bit of second after >> the start of the Universe. And if you ask where that came from then I >> will ask you where g(G)od(s) came from. And you will then use special >> pleading and say that g(G)od(s) have existed forever. We have been >> here before. Science offers a detailed narrative of the history of the >> universe, based on observation and using tested predictive models. You >> have "God did it" as an answer for each question. > >How is sting theory related to the Big Bang theory? String theory has to incorporate Big Bang theory. It is an attempt to get a deeper understanding of physics. > Is it true that some >stars are older than other stars? OMFG! Do you really not know that? Here is a hint: all material heavier than, IIANM helium, was created in a star. A star that then exploded and the debris formed a new star and the planets. We really do know lots and lots about this stuff. You might want to give up this demand that science provide complete full answers and read up on the wonderful things we do know. -- 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 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: [snip] >Don, >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the population. And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws. Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons. -- 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 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:50:14 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0905071750140001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <m5j443hakdnqbtafim5vuo096lc1e0oug9@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:07:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) in >> <Jason-0905071607390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >I agree that pygmy child bones look like other human child bones. You >> >missed my point. My point was that Nanderthals MAY have been a race of >> >people. >> >> That is not what the experts who actually have seen the evidence say. >> Why should I give any credence to your empty speculation over their >> work? >> >> >That's the reason they were able to produce offspring when they >> >mated with Cro-Magnums. >> >> If they did, so what? Horses can produce offspring with donkeys, but >> horses are not donkeys. Evolution theory predicts this. Evolution >> says that there is stepwise change, not sudden magical differences. >> Species slowly separate and that means that there will be times when >> there is cross-breeding, at least potentially. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >When I wrote a 5 page report on Neanderthals in 1971, I checked about 20 >separate reference books in search of the best 5 references to use. At >that time, the experts believed that there were so many genetic >differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums that they could NOT have >produced offspring if they mated. I don't expect you to believe that >Cro-Magnums and Neanderthals are two separate races just because I believe >it. And it is controversial now if they interbred. And it is, as I said, not a problem for evolution theory. Neanderthal are a separate species even if they might have interbred at some point. Tigers and lions can interbreed in zoos, but don't do it in the wild: they are separate species. Life is more complex than you will admit. -- 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 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 In article <eti44313uad1bjba60o43ueu0cj8t12sv0@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:15:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) in > <Jason-0905071615230001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > >In article <5aem1dF2mm3ncU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> > >> snip > >> > > >> > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of > >> > evolution. > >> > >> That doesn't have anything to do with evolution. > >> > >> And evolution doesn't need you to advocate it. > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >Darwin discussed how life came to be in his book. > > To be precise he has a paragraph of speculation on the subject. > > >Believe it or not, when > >I took a college biology glass in 1971, the professor taught us about the > >primordial soup theory. He claimed that was how life began on this earth. > >I wish that I had asked that professor--How did that primordial soup come > >to be? > > That is not a biology question. The Big Bang theory is the best > current explanation. That takes us about to a tiny bit of second after > the start of the Universe. And if you ask where that came from then I > will ask you where g(G)od(s) came from. And you will then use special > pleading and say that g(G)od(s) have existed forever. We have been > here before. Science offers a detailed narrative of the history of the > universe, based on observation and using tested predictive models. You > have "God did it" as an answer for each question. How is sting theory related to the Big Bang theory? Is it true that some stars are older than other stars? Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 > Jason wrote: >> You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It >> might be icr.com or icr.org >> >> It would take thousands of words and lots of time to tell you their point >> of view about how life came to be on this planet. That's the reason you >> should visit that site. Bull! They have only one, totally unsupported, claim .... "gawddidit"! 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.