Guest Michael Gray Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 May 2007 12:16:54 -0700, Arturo Magidin <magidin@math.berkeley.edu> wrote: - Refer: <1180639013.965754.97140@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> >On May 6, 4:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: > > [...] > >> I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the >> Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. > >The main alternative to the Theory of Evolution is Willful Ignorance. >The evidence is vast and readily available, here and elsewhere. Well said. But were it not for a combination of Wilful Ignorance, Fraud and Threats of violence, the Jehova's Witlesses would not be able to exist. -- Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:29:36 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071829370001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <r1nu53ta7uteqac54dndq3g7qud918q21d@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 00:33:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3105070033150001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1180588981.121184.229710@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On May 31, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1180579251.037007.263...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> >> >> >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > On May 31, 3:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > In article <1180514437.317608.17...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >Martin >> >> > >> >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On May 30, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > > > > I did not download the article but I read it. >> >> > >> >> > > > > Wait. How can you read the article without downloading it to your >> >> > > > > computer? Do you mean you didn't "print it out"? I didn't either. >> >> > > > > It isn't necessary. If you had actually read the article you would >> >> > > > > have been able to answer questions about what you had read. You >> >> > > > > obviously didn't read the article even though you said you did. >> >> > >> >> > > > I meant that I did not save the article or print out the >article. I am a >> >> > > > speed reader. I speed read the article. My memory is not as good >> >as it was >> >> > > > when I was your age. As the song says, "what a drag it is >getting old." >> >> > > > I have a question for you. While I was in high school, we looked at >> >> > > > one-celled creatures under microscopes. They were called >parameciums and >> >> > > > amoebae. Do you honestly believe that mankind evolved from a one >> >> > > > celled-life form? You could never convince me that it could >ever happen. >> >> > >> >> > > Incidentally, you said that there was no evidence for either >> >> > > abiogenesis or human evolution. There is evidence of both. You said >> >> > > if you were presented evidence then you would become an >> >> > > "evolutionist". You have been presented the evidence. You now say >> >> > > that nothing could ever convince you. The conclusion that you've been >> >> > > lying to us is inescapable. >> >> >> >> > I have not seen the evidence. I thought about the amoebas and various >> >> > other one celled creatures we looked at under microscopes when I was in >> >> > high school. I was fascinated by those one celled creatures. After >reading >> >> > one of your interesting posts, I thought about the possibility of mankind >> >> > evolving from a one celled life form. I have seen no evidence indicating >> >> > that it happened that way. It would take billions and billions of years >> >> > and still might not happen. One celled creatures like amoebas have >been on >> >> > this earth for millions of years, I have not seen evidence >indicating that >> >> > they have evolved into multi-celled life forms. It appears to me that if >> >> > they have not evolved in several million years, why would I believe that >> >> > other one celled life forms evolved into mankind during those several >> >> > million years. Just because you believe it happened, don't expect me to >> >> > believe it. >> >> >> >> You don't have to believe anything but you should stop LYING, saying >> >> that no evidence supporting evolution exists. The genetic code in >> >> mankind is the same found in monkeys, birds, lizards, fish, frogs, >> >> insects, plants, etc. and, yes, even in single celled creatures. An >> >> animal cell is an animal cell is an animal cell and even that can be >> >> shown to have developed from ordinary bacteria through viral >> >> eukaryogenesis and endosymbiosis. >> >> >> >> When a mountain of evidence supports a theory, faith is not required. >> >> When absolutely NO evidence supports a hypotheisis, a great deal of >> >> faith is required to believe it. You are the one who requires faith, >> >> not us. Don't lecture us on believing anything without evidence: it >> >> is pure hypocrisy on your part. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Martin, >> >There are at least 90 people that know just as much about science as you >> >know. At least 40 of them have Ph.D degrees in various fields of science. >> >> You haven't read those books so you don't know what they really say. > >That may or not be true. They have articles in every issue of the ICR >newsletter that were written by various people that have Ph.D degrees. >It's my guess that some of the people mentioned in those two books are >some of the same people that have written articles that have been printed >in the newsletter. You are correct about one of your points: I don't know >what they wrote in the books since it may be different than what they >wrote in their articles. The problem is that the ICR is an anti-science religious organization. No sensible person accepts any of their claims about science since they have demonstrated that they are dishonest when it comes to science. >> >They probably have seen the same evidence that you have seen. They >> >continue to be advocates of creationism. I will continue to be an advocate >> >of creationism until I am 100 percent sure that you are correct and that >> >those 90 people are wrong. >> >> You are a victim of lies from an organization that claims to be >> Christian but is most involved in getting Christians to give them money. > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:51:54 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071851540001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018oio@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3105071359170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f3n78i$u06$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> >> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I >> >> >> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I >constantly ask >> >> >> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, >> >> >> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") >> >> >> >> >> >> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science. >> >> >> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. >> >> >> >> >> >> Tokay >> >> > >> >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR >website. >> >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe >> >> that to be false you must have other evidence. >> >> >> >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I >> >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more >> >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. >> >> >> >> Tokay >> > >> >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you >> >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: >> >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) >> > >> >This is a brief summary: >> >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation >> >process was finished, evolution kicked in. >> >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. >> >Json >> >> There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is >> not scientific. >> >> There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One >> of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not >> share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees >> with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? > >The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying >that the same God created humans and also created apes. But that's not evidence, that's making things up that doesn't fit the evidence. >He used some of >the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans >do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We >are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are >lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have >fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our >image, according to Our likeness." God did not say anything like that >about animals--including apes. We are unique and a special creation. So you choose to believe and refuse to accept any evidence that your doctrine is false. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071900500001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <dmmu53hmcmrn2d1vrccfbnad32l5acnl94@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:35:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3105071435460001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1180641387.036483.169950@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> >> On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> snip >> >> >> >> > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from >> >living cells= >> >> > > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> > >> >> > > You have never seen a human? >> >> > >> >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> > >> >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a >living cell. >> >> > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants >and some >> >> > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in.- >> >> >> >> I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very >> >> surprising! >> > >> >Re-read my statement--I stated: "After the creation process was >> >finished--EVOLUTION kicked in". I have stated in other posts that the main >> >area of disagreement is with abiogenesis and common descent. >> > >> Because you refuse to actually look at the evidence that shows that your >> story is totally bogus. > >Answer this question: >Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled >life form can evolve from non-life? > >I asked this same question once before but did not get an answer. > As I have told you before, life existed before cells. Your question shows your innate dishonesty in dealing with this. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <465F44A7.9020708@osu.edu>, James Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > [to Martin Phipps] > > I have a question for you. While I was in high school, we > > looked at one-celled creatures under microscopes. They were > > called parameciums and amoebae. Do you honestly believe that > > mankind evolved from a one celled-life form? You could never > > convince me that it could ever happen. > > Why is this so hard to imagine? Every individual human starts > life as a single-celled lifeforms: a fertilized ovum. > > (I don't intend this as a scientific proof, just a > "Wake up and smell the coffee" smack in the head. > The evidence for common descent is much better than this.) > > Jim Burns Jim, Let's say that you took a one-celled life form and placed it in a special environment similar to the primordial pond. How long do you think is would take for humans to evolve from that one celled life form? There are one celled life creatures such as parameciums and amoebae that have never even evolved into multi-celled creatures. jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 31 May 2007 00:33:15 -0700, Jason wrote: > There are at least 90 people that know just as much about science as you > know. Really? How do you determine that? What are your quantification criteria? > At least 40 of them have Ph.D degrees in various fields of > science. First, you don't establish that these are _relevant_ fields and second, even if you do, all you're doing is committing an argument from authority fallacy: "They're scientists, so they know better than you." Nice try, though. > They probably have seen the same evidence that you have seen. > They continue to be advocates of creationism. So? > I will continue to be an > advocate of creationism until I am 100 percent sure that you are correct > and that those 90 people are wrong. Elsewhere you asked for evidence and received it. Now you change the goalposts. This means you are not honestly seeking evidence, but, rather, clinging absolutely to your view regardless of what the evidence says, unless and until someone can meet your standard of "proof" - which is something science doesn't do. You're asking an impossibility to cover a lie on your part. Yes, well, all very compelling arguments for your views. -- No. 2 Thou shall not use thy lord’s name in vein. • Christopher Calabrese (a fundy) Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <r1nu53ta7uteqac54dndq3g7qud918q21d@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 00:33:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3105070033150001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180588981.121184.229710@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 31, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1180579251.037007.263...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > On May 31, 3:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > In article <1180514437.317608.17...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > >Martin > >> > > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > > > On May 30, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > I did not download the article but I read it. > >> > > >> > > > > Wait. How can you read the article without downloading it to your > >> > > > > computer? Do you mean you didn't "print it out"? I didn't either. > >> > > > > It isn't necessary. If you had actually read the article you would > >> > > > > have been able to answer questions about what you had read. You > >> > > > > obviously didn't read the article even though you said you did. > >> > > >> > > > I meant that I did not save the article or print out the article. I am a > >> > > > speed reader. I speed read the article. My memory is not as good > >as it was > >> > > > when I was your age. As the song says, "what a drag it is getting old." > >> > > > I have a question for you. While I was in high school, we looked at > >> > > > one-celled creatures under microscopes. They were called parameciums and > >> > > > amoebae. Do you honestly believe that mankind evolved from a one > >> > > > celled-life form? You could never convince me that it could ever happen. > >> > > >> > > Incidentally, you said that there was no evidence for either > >> > > abiogenesis or human evolution. There is evidence of both. You said > >> > > if you were presented evidence then you would become an > >> > > "evolutionist". You have been presented the evidence. You now say > >> > > that nothing could ever convince you. The conclusion that you've been > >> > > lying to us is inescapable. > >> > >> > I have not seen the evidence. I thought about the amoebas and various > >> > other one celled creatures we looked at under microscopes when I was in > >> > high school. I was fascinated by those one celled creatures. After reading > >> > one of your interesting posts, I thought about the possibility of mankind > >> > evolving from a one celled life form. I have seen no evidence indicating > >> > that it happened that way. It would take billions and billions of years > >> > and still might not happen. One celled creatures like amoebas have been on > >> > this earth for millions of years, I have not seen evidence indicating that > >> > they have evolved into multi-celled life forms. It appears to me that if > >> > they have not evolved in several million years, why would I believe that > >> > other one celled life forms evolved into mankind during those several > >> > million years. Just because you believe it happened, don't expect me to > >> > believe it. > >> > >> You don't have to believe anything but you should stop LYING, saying > >> that no evidence supporting evolution exists. The genetic code in > >> mankind is the same found in monkeys, birds, lizards, fish, frogs, > >> insects, plants, etc. and, yes, even in single celled creatures. An > >> animal cell is an animal cell is an animal cell and even that can be > >> shown to have developed from ordinary bacteria through viral > >> eukaryogenesis and endosymbiosis. > >> > >> When a mountain of evidence supports a theory, faith is not required. > >> When absolutely NO evidence supports a hypotheisis, a great deal of > >> faith is required to believe it. You are the one who requires faith, > >> not us. Don't lecture us on believing anything without evidence: it > >> is pure hypocrisy on your part. > >> > >> Martin > > > >Martin, > >There are at least 90 people that know just as much about science as you > >know. At least 40 of them have Ph.D degrees in various fields of science. > > You haven't read those books so you don't know what they really say. That may or not be true. They have articles in every issue of the ICR newsletter that were written by various people that have Ph.D degrees. It's my guess that some of the people mentioned in those two books are some of the same people that have written articles that have been printed in the newsletter. You are correct about one of your points: I don't know what they wrote in the books since it may be different than what they wrote in their articles. > > >They probably have seen the same evidence that you have seen. They > >continue to be advocates of creationism. I will continue to be an advocate > >of creationism until I am 100 percent sure that you are correct and that > >those 90 people are wrong. > > You are a victim of lies from an organization that claims to be > Christian but is most involved in getting Christians to give them money. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018oio@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3105071359170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <f3n78i$u06$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > ... > > >> >> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I > >> >> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I constantly ask > >> >> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, > >> >> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") > >> >> > >> >> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science. > >> >> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. > >> >> > >> >> Tokay > >> > > >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR website. > >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe > >> that to be false you must have other evidence. > >> > >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I > >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more > >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. > >> > >> Tokay > > > >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you > >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: > >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) > > > >This is a brief summary: > >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation > >process was finished, evolution kicked in. > >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. > >Json > > There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is > not scientific. > > There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One > of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not > share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees > with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our image, according to Our likeness." God did not say anything like that about animals--including apes. We are unique and a special creation. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <qjmu53tuhi4qo3um5tlpa9amp804kpu0lp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:17:06 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3005072217060001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61lhcp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3005071933010001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <a57s539daat6ed7ur8fecr7s2g90tfsufu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:46:59 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-3005071846590001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 > >> >> ><notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jason wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> >> > I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of > >evolution > >> >> >> > and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the > >> >> >> > scientific method. > >> >> >> > Jason > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you realize > >> >> >> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) out of > >> >> >> the water. > >> >> > > >> >> >No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in > >> >> >various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science. > >> >> > >> >> Then they are all liars. Creation science is a religious doctrine, > >> >> nothing else. > >> >> > >> >> Besides, the list you have is not a list of 90 scientists. > >> >> > >> >> >Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In > >> >> >most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common > >> >> >descent. > >> >> > >> >> So you reject evolution for no reason at all. > >> >> > >> >> >We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that can > >be proved. > >> >> > >> >> You keep using the word 'proved' in a scientific context. You keep > >> >> proving to us that you have no use for science at all. Science uses > >> >> evidence, when you use the word 'proof' you show that you are ignorant > >> >> of the scientific process, particularly when you demand 'proof'. > >> >> > >> >> Don't come back with more lies. Don't quote the ICR, CRS, AIG or > >> >> Discovery Institute. They are all enemies of science, liars, and > >> >> charletans. Not one of the people associated with them are scientists > >> >> any more, even the few who were actually trained in science. They are > >> >> now just con men, trying to get you to give them money. > >> > > >> >We support the aspects of evolution that have evidence. > >> > >> Make up your mind. If you support the aspects of evolution that have > >> evidence then you support common ancestry and abiogenesis (which isn't > >> evolution, of course). If you reject common ancestry, you don't support > >> the aspects of evolution that have evidence. If you reject abiogenesis, > >> you reject science. > > > >I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from living cells. > > > Jason, admit it, you've never looked at any evidence. I visited at least two sites that Martin referred me to. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <dmmu53hmcmrn2d1vrccfbnad32l5acnl94@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:35:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3105071435460001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180641387.036483.169950@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> snip > >> > >> > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from > >living cells= > >> > > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> > > >> > > You have never seen a human? > >> > > >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> > > >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a living cell. > >> > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants and some > >> > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in.- > >> > >> I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very > >> surprising! > > > >Re-read my statement--I stated: "After the creation process was > >finished--EVOLUTION kicked in". I have stated in other posts that the main > >area of disagreement is with abiogenesis and common descent. > > > Because you refuse to actually look at the evidence that shows that your > story is totally bogus. Answer this question: Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled life form can evolve from non-life? I asked this same question once before but did not get an answer. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:51:54 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018oio@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3105071359170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f3n78i$u06$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> >> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I >> >> >> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I >constantly ask >> >> >> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, >> >> >> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") >> >> >> >> >> >> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science. >> >> >> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. >> >> >> >> >> >> Tokay >> >> > >> >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR >website. >> >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe >> >> that to be false you must have other evidence. >> >> >> >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I >> >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more >> >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. >> >> >> >> Tokay >> > >> >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you >> >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: >> >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) >> > >> >This is a brief summary: >> >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation >> >process was finished, evolution kicked in. >> >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. >> >Json >> >> There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is >> not scientific. >> >> There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One >> of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not >> share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees >> with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? > >The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying >that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of >the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans >do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We >are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are >lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have >fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our >image, according to Our likeness." 1:26. Genesis 2 is a completely different creation story from a completely different source. 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 June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in >relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I >believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the >creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin >mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the >last paragraph of chapter 14: >"...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be >related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. > Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? 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 June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <dmmu53hmcmrn2d1vrccfbnad32l5acnl94@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:35:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3105071435460001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1180641387.036483.169950@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> >> On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> snip >> >> >> >> > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from >> >living cells= >> >> > > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> > >> >> > > You have never seen a human? >> >> > >> >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> > >> >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a >living cell. >> >> > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants >and some >> >> > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in.- >> >> >> >> I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very >> >> surprising! >> > >> >Re-read my statement--I stated: "After the creation process was >> >finished--EVOLUTION kicked in". I have stated in other posts that the main >> >area of disagreement is with abiogenesis and common descent. >> > >> Because you refuse to actually look at the evidence that shows that your >> story is totally bogus. > >Answer this question: >Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled >life form can evolve from non-life? Answer this question: is there anything to prevent it from happening? And please don't say the law of biogenesis, since there's no such thing. 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 Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 1, 9:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <465F44A7.9020...@osu.edu>, James Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > [to Martin Phipps] > > > I have a question for you. While I was in high school, we > > > looked at one-celled creatures under microscopes. They were > > > called parameciums and amoebae. Do you honestly believe that > > > mankind evolved from a one celled-life form? You could never > > > convince me that it could ever happen. > > > Why is this so hard to imagine? Every individual human starts > > life as a single-celled lifeforms: a fertilized ovum. > > > (I don't intend this as a scientific proof, just a > > "Wake up and smell the coffee" smack in the head. > > The evidence for common descent is much better than this.) > > > Jim Burns > > Jim, > Let's say that you took a one-celled life form and placed it in a special > environment similar to the primordial pond. How long do you think is would > take for humans to evolve from that one celled life form? Three and a half billion years. And that's not speculation: that's what actually happened. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <67su53l58to9cg3puba8beb6iiah5u57i8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:51:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3105071851540001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018oio@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3105071359170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <f3n78i$u06$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> >> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I > >> >> >> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I > >constantly ask > >> >> >> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, > >> >> >> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") > >> >> >> > >> >> >> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science. > >> >> >> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Tokay > >> >> > > >> >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR > >website. > >> >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe > >> >> that to be false you must have other evidence. > >> >> > >> >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I > >> >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more > >> >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. > >> >> > >> >> Tokay > >> > > >> >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you > >> >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: > >> >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) > >> > > >> >This is a brief summary: > >> >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation > >> >process was finished, evolution kicked in. > >> >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. > >> >Json > >> > >> There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is > >> not scientific. > >> > >> There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One > >> of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not > >> share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees > >> with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? > > > >The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying > >that the same God created humans and also created apes. > > But that's not evidence, that's making things up that doesn't fit the > evidence. > > >He used some of > >the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans > >do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We > >are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are > >lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have > >fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our > >image, according to Our likeness." God did not say anything like that > >about animals--including apes. We are unique and a special creation. > > So you choose to believe and refuse to accept any evidence that your > doctrine is false. I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the last paragraph of chapter 14: "...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071930320001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <67su53l58to9cg3puba8beb6iiah5u57i8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:51:54 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3105071851540001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018oio@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-3105071359170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <f3n78i$u06$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I >> >> >> >> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I >> >constantly ask >> >> >> >> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, >> >> >> >> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the >science. >> >> >> >> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tokay >> >> >> > >> >> >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR >> >website. >> >> >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe >> >> >> that to be false you must have other evidence. >> >> >> >> >> >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I >> >> >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be >nothing more >> >> >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. >> >> >> >> >> >> Tokay >> >> > >> >> >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you >> >> >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: >> >> >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) >> >> > >> >> >This is a brief summary: >> >> >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation >> >> >process was finished, evolution kicked in. >> >> >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. >> >> >Json >> >> >> >> There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is >> >> not scientific. >> >> >> >> There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One >> >> of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not >> >> share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees >> >> with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? >> > >> >The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying >> >that the same God created humans and also created apes. >> >> But that's not evidence, that's making things up that doesn't fit the >> evidence. >> >> >He used some of >> >the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans >> >do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We >> >are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are >> >lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have >> >fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our >> >image, according to Our likeness." God did not say anything like that >> >about animals--including apes. We are unique and a special creation. >> >> So you choose to believe and refuse to accept any evidence that your >> doctrine is false. > >I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in >relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I >believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the >creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin >mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the >last paragraph of chapter 14: >"...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be >related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. > Your beliefs are contrary to the evidence. Why do you continue to hold false beliefs? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <79su531jk0i30mn360rlq1bu3nevi17431@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3105071900500001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <dmmu53hmcmrn2d1vrccfbnad32l5acnl94@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:35:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3105071435460001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1180641387.036483.169950@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> > > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> snip > >> >> > >> >> > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from > >> >living cells= > >> >> > > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> >> > > >> >> > > You have never seen a human? > >> >> > > >> >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> >> > > >> >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a > >living cell. > >> >> > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants > >and some > >> >> > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in.- > >> >> > >> >> I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very > >> >> surprising! > >> > > >> >Re-read my statement--I stated: "After the creation process was > >> >finished--EVOLUTION kicked in". I have stated in other posts that the main > >> >area of disagreement is with abiogenesis and common descent. > >> > > >> Because you refuse to actually look at the evidence that shows that your > >> story is totally bogus. > > > >Answer this question: > >Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled > >life form can evolve from non-life? > > > >I asked this same question once before but did not get an answer. > > > As I have told you before, life existed before cells. > > Your question shows your innate dishonesty in dealing with this. Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled life form can evolve from the sort of life you mentioned in your post? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:43 -0500, in alt.atheism Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in <5fvu53puf70di4a8j8gbc3nuh17qfhn17b@4ax.com>: >In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:51:54 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >(Jason) let us all know that: > >>In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018oio@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>> <Jason-3105071359170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> >In article <f3n78i$u06$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Jason wrote: >>> >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >> >> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I >>> >> >> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I >>constantly ask >>> >> >> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, >>> >> >> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") >>> >> >> >>> >> >> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science. >>> >> >> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Tokay >>> >> > >>> >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR >>website. >>> >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe >>> >> that to be false you must have other evidence. >>> >> >>> >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I >>> >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more >>> >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. >>> >> >>> >> Tokay >>> > >>> >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you >>> >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: >>> >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) >>> > >>> >This is a brief summary: >>> >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation >>> >process was finished, evolution kicked in. >>> >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. >>> >Json >>> >>> There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is >>> not scientific. >>> >>> There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One >>> of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not >>> share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees >>> with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? >> >>The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying >>that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of >>the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans >>do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We >>are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are >>lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have >>fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our >>image, according to Our likeness." > > 1:26. Genesis 2 is a completely different creation story from >a completely different source. With a different god. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:33:18 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071933190001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <79su531jk0i30mn360rlq1bu3nevi17431@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3105071900500001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <dmmu53hmcmrn2d1vrccfbnad32l5acnl94@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:35:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-3105071435460001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1180641387.036483.169950@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> > > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, >Free Lunch >> >> >> snip >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from >> >> >living cells= >> >> >> > > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > You have never seen a human? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> >> > >> >> >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a >> >living cell. >> >> >> > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants >> >and some >> >> >> > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution >kicked in.- >> >> >> >> >> >> I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very >> >> >> surprising! >> >> > >> >> >Re-read my statement--I stated: "After the creation process was >> >> >finished--EVOLUTION kicked in". I have stated in other posts that the main >> >> >area of disagreement is with abiogenesis and common descent. >> >> > >> >> Because you refuse to actually look at the evidence that shows that your >> >> story is totally bogus. >> > >> >Answer this question: >> >Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled >> >life form can evolve from non-life? >> > >> >I asked this same question once before but did not get an answer. >> > >> As I have told you before, life existed before cells. >> >> Your question shows your innate dishonesty in dealing with this. > >Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled >life form can evolve from the sort of life you mentioned in your post? > Scientists have done enough to know that each step along the way is consistent with everything we know about biochemistry. Your objection is completely meaningless. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 1, 9:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > ... > > > >> >> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I > > >> >> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I > constantly ask > > >> >> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, > > >> >> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") > > > >> >> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science. > > >> >> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. > > > >> >> Tokay > > > >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR > website. > > >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. > > > >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe > > >> that to be false you must have other evidence. > > > >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I > > >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more > > >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. > > > >> Tokay > > > >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you > > >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: > > >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) > > > >This is a brief summary: > > >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation > > >process was finished, evolution kicked in. > > >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. > > >Json > > > There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is > > not scientific. > > > There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One > > of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not > > share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees > > with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? > > The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying > that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of > the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans > do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We > are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. Animals can use tools. (Birds build nests. Beavers build dams.) Animals can use language. (Whales can communicate over long distances because low pitch sounds can travel farther through water than through air. Chimpanzees can be taught to use sign language.) Animals can express feelings. (Cats purr when they are happy. Dogs wag their tails when they are happy.) Animals can form social groups. (Dogs form packs. Bees build hives. Ants build colonies.) There is absolutely no reason to separate humans from other animals. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 1, 9:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <qjmu53tuhi4qo3um5tlpa9amp804kpu...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:17:06 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3005072217060...@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-3005071933010...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <a57s539daat6ed7ur8fecr7s2g90tfs...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:46:59 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> <Jason-3005071846590...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_in...@comcast.com>, AT1 > > >> >> ><notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > > > >> >> >> Jason wrote: > > > >> ... > > > >> >> >> > I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of > > >evolution > > >> >> >> > and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the > > >> >> >> > scientific method. > > >> >> >> > Jason > > > >> >> >> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you > realize > > >> >> >> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) > out of > > >> >> >> the water. > > > >> >> >No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in > > >> >> >various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science. > > > >> >> Then they are all liars. Creation science is a religious doctrine, > > >> >> nothing else. > > > >> >> Besides, the list you have is not a list of 90 scientists. > > > >> >> >Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In > > >> >> >most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis > and common > > >> >> >descent. > > > >> >> So you reject evolution for no reason at all. > > > >> >> >We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that can > > >be proved. > > > >> >> You keep using the word 'proved' in a scientific context. You keep > > >> >> proving to us that you have no use for science at all. Science uses > > >> >> evidence, when you use the word 'proof' you show that you are ignorant > > >> >> of the scientific process, particularly when you demand 'proof'. > > > >> >> Don't come back with more lies. Don't quote the ICR, CRS, AIG or > > >> >> Discovery Institute. They are all enemies of science, liars, and > > >> >> charletans. Not one of the people associated with them are scientists > > >> >> any more, even the few who were actually trained in science. They are > > >> >> now just con men, trying to get you to give them money. > > > >> >We support the aspects of evolution that have evidence. > > > >> Make up your mind. If you support the aspects of evolution that have > > >> evidence then you support common ancestry and abiogenesis (which isn't > > >> evolution, of course). If you reject common ancestry, you don't support > > >> the aspects of evolution that have evidence. If you reject abiogenesis, > > >> you reject science. > > > >I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from living cells. > > > Jason, admit it, you've never looked at any evidence. > > I visited at least two sites that Martin referred me to. But you admitted to not reading for comprehension: you admitted to only looking at the pages, ie "speed reading". Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 1, 10:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dmmu53hmcmrn2d1vrccfbnad32l5acn...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:35:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3105071435460...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1180641387.036483.169...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> snip > > > >> > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from > > >living cells= > > >> > > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > >> > > You have never seen a human? > > > >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a > living cell. > > >> > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants > and some > > >> > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in.- > > > >> I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very > > >> surprising! > > > >Re-read my statement--I stated: "After the creation process was > > >finished--EVOLUTION kicked in". I have stated in other posts that the main > > >area of disagreement is with abiogenesis and common descent. > > > Because you refuse to actually look at the evidence that shows that your > > story is totally bogus. > > Answer this question: > Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled > life form can evolve from non-life? > > I asked this same question once before but did not get an answer. STOP LYING. The information has been posted many times now. What appears has been posted FIVE times now. Just because you don't understand it and only clicked on a couple of the links DOESN'T mean that the evidence hasn't been made available to you. Experiments have shown that EVERY STEP involved in the process of forming an animal cell is possible through the processes of chemical and biological evolution. There's no doubt that remains, except of course in the minds of those who refuse to even look at the evidence. In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. Most of this information has been posted already. You would have known all this information already if you had actually read a paper on the subject like you said you had. Here's an actual paper on the subject that you can now read: http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 > On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:51:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3105071851540...@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >The main difference is that humans can have > >fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our > >image, according to Our likeness." God did not say anything like that > >about animals--including apes. Your god doesn't even exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 1, 10:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in > relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I > believe that God created mankind; It would be hard for god to do that when he doesn't even exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 1, 10:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled > life form can evolve from the sort of life you mentioned in your post? YES. A THOUSAND TIMES "YES!" In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. Most of this information has been posted already. You would have known all this information already if you had actually read a paper on the subject like you said you had. Here's an actual paper on the subject that you can now read: http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html 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.