Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble > <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> > > >> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a > >> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last > >> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent > >> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" > >> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with > >> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life > >> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last > >> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point that he > >> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: > >> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That > >> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is > >> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one celled life > >> form. > >> Jason > > > > > >Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to > >tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in > >his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which > >there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred > >years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in spite of > >being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as > >any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on > >sundays. > > > There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction > that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". > Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated > with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very > unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. > > But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies > showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian > bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! > There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. > > So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". > A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned > was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea > of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. > > The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped > along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME > and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and > far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). > > As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" > to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' > constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very > long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' > but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt > well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be > constructed. > > That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. > If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off > here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, > and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice > in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a > floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. They don't even like it when college professors teach college students about creation science. Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed. The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design to be taught in the public schools system. The evolutionists are the new fascist. Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted tenure. jason Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:21:32 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a >Christian at least during some years of his life. Where did you get that? From your mistaken belief that there's only one theory of evolution and that Charles Darwin is the person who proposed it? He isn't even the only person who proposed the theory of common descent through natural selection - which is the ONLY theory about evolution he proposed. Steven J. Gould is another person who proposed ONE OF the THEORIES of evolution, and he was NEVER a Christian. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:34:34 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0206071334340001@66-52-22-85.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, >luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble >> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> >> >> >> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a >> >> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last >> >> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent >> >> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" >> >> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with >> >> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life >> >> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last >> >> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point that he >> >> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: >> >> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That >> >> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is >> >> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one celled life >> >> form. >> >> Jason >> > >> > >> >Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to >> >tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in >> >his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which >> >there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred >> >years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in spite of >> >being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as >> >any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on >> >sundays. >> >> >> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction >> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". >> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated >> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very >> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. >> >> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies >> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian >> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! >> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. >> >> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". >> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned >> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea >> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. >> >> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped >> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME >> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and >> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). >> >> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" >> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' >> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very >> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' >> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt >> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be >> constructed. >> >> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. >> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off >> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, >> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice >> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a >> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) > >The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not >allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. No, the problem is that you refuse to accept scientific discoveries and are stamping your feel like a toddler who can't have his way. Your claims about the history of life on earth are false. Repeating them will not make them true. >They don't even like it when college professors teach college students >about creation science. Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the >Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not >allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed. >The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design >to be taught in the public schools system. The evolutionists are the new >fascist. Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an >advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of >course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted >tenure. Your understanding of the case is wrong. Please, stop offering your opinion about things that you are ignorant of. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3rg71$rer$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb69g@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-0106071829510001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmdnh8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-0106071801100001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg6v1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071735240001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>> In article <1180735061.142997.73300@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. >>>>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the apes and >>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the >>> gorilla >>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw fecal >>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed >>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to >>> confuse >>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution. >>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? >>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use fire? >>>>>> Does your entire theology rely on the fact that humans learned to tame >>>>>> fire and other animals did not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Wow.... >>>>> No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference between mankind and >>>>> animals. >>>> It's a trivial behavioral difference. >>>> >>>>> I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships God and >>>>> that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans worship God. >>>> Another trivial difference. >>> Another major difference: >>> IQ levels--much lower than normal people. >>> >>> also: Animals can not have conversations with people by talking. >>> >>> >> Actually, they can. You should really start reading some scientific >> stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign language. So they >> can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited to sound. >> What was your point again? >> >> >> Tokay > > My point is that they can not have converations with people BY TALKING. I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sounds. We are communicating by internet. No sound? > Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feeder outside her window. > When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on her window to > let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. After she refilled > the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Dogs let their > owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign language. Do you > think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a 12 year old > child? Hardly. But that is not the question. Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the solution > to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a low IQ. > jason Ah, so the difference is one of IQ? You are on very thin ice, let me tell you..... Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Mike wrote: > Martin Phipps wrote: >> It's obviously been a long time since you were in college. Nowadays >> an education involves more than simply answering simple questions. >> Nowadays people are taught to use reasoning. Apparently you never >> were. > > You got to remember, he drove/drives a cab for a living. I doubt VERY > much he even made it past high school. > Hey! Cab drivers around here are quite intelligent people! ;-) Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 3:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > It's the logical conclusion of the advocates of creation science that God > created mankind. You keep saying that Jason and eventually you might believe it. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Mike wrote: > Jason wrote: >> In article <1180749228.575786.231970@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> Martin >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 2, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jun 2, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 >> questions for >>>>>> evolutionists" >>>>>> 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home >>>>>> 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the >> universe - what >>>>>> banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not >> God? Where >>>>>> did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space >>>>>> come >>>>>> from that the bang expanded into? >>>>> Where do you think your God came from? >>>> You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students >>>> get >>>> away with that? >>> You're answering my question with a question. Should we let you get >>> away with that? >>> >>> Martin >> >> Martin, >> I realize that you don't have much respect for my knowledge of science. > > Oh, we have LOTS of respect for your knowledge of science. The whole > problem is that such knowledge is probably limited to about 2 words and > then you go off on this side track of religion that is so stupid as to > be laughable. > >> That is the reason I tried to find some information from someone that has >> as much knowledge as you. Dr. Steven Weinberg was a Nobel prize >> winner--his field was physics. I found this information at the American >> Institute of Physics website: > > <snip speech from Dr. Weinberg> > > How, exactly, did that help your position? If you actually READ what he > said, you'd realize he was arguing AGAINST your stand on things. I am pretty sure he regrets having posted this.... It was a nice article, though. Maybe he should refine his "speed reading" some more.... Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, > luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble >> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>> >>>> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a >>>> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last >>>> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent >>>> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" >>>> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with >>>> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life >>>> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last >>>> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point that he >>>> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: >>>> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That >>>> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is >>>> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one celled life >>>> form. >>>> Jason >>> >>> Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to >>> tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in >>> his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which >>> there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred >>> years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in spite of >>> being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as >>> any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on >>> sundays. >> >> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction >> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". >> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated >> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very >> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. >> >> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies >> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian >> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! >> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. >> >> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". >> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned >> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea >> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. >> >> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped >> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME >> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and >> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). >> >> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" >> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' >> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very >> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' >> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt >> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be >> constructed. >> >> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. >> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off >> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, >> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice >> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a >> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) > > The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not > allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. If it's a valid theory, no problem. We explained at length what a valid scientific theory must be. Which criteria it must fulfill. ID simply and plainly fails said criterias. > They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > about creation science. See above. Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the > Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not > allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed. > The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design > to be taught in the public schools system. NOT in SCIENCE CLASS! It FAILS all criteria. So it is not science! Teach it all you like. Around here the class is termed "Religion" (pronounce it german). Or "Ethik". (It IS taught, just not in science class.) The evolutionists are the new > fascist. lol Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). That depends what class he wanted to teach. If it was sociology, he can be my guest. If it was biology, he is out. Nor science. Simple, actually. Of > course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > tenure. Depends. If he wanted to teach sociology, What is his qualification? Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:21:32 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a >> Christian at least during some years of his life. > > Where did you get that? From your mistaken belief that there's only > one theory of evolution and that Charles Darwin is the person who > proposed it? He isn't even the only person who proposed the theory of > common descent through natural selection - which is the ONLY theory > about evolution he proposed. > > Steven J. Gould is another person who proposed ONE OF the THEORIES of > evolution, and he was NEVER a Christian. Yeah, Gould had an idea. Mixed up by a lot of those bible-thumpers. Actually a pretty good idea. He is NOT a saltationist. Often that mistake is made.... ah, never mind. Jason will not grasp the idea anyway. Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:14:01 +0200, in alt.atheism Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in <f3t1f1$i75$01$2@news.t-online.com>: >Jason wrote: .... >> My point is that they can not have converations with people BY TALKING. > >I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sounds. We are >communicating by internet. No sound? Sadly, we are not communicating with Jason. He's like a bird who knows a few words but understands them not at all and cannot learn. >> Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feeder outside her window. >> When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on her window to >> let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. After she refilled >> the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Dogs let their >> owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign language. Do you >> think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a 12 year old >> child? > >Hardly. But that is not the question. Jason is practiced at not answering the question, but diverting it to something else. > Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the solution >> to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a low IQ. >> jason > >Ah, so the difference is one of IQ? > >You are on very thin ice, let me tell you..... Yes, but Jason doesn't care that his assertions are incorrect. He has FAITH and for him, FAITH trumps reality. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:25:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0206071825200001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <kb14639jhm2blku18rlfbu04og9sinkvuf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:34:34 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0206071334340001@66-52-22-85.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, >> >luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble >> >> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a >> >> >> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last >> >> >> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent >> >> >> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" >> >> >> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I >am with >> >> >> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life >> >> >> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last >> >> >> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point >that he >> >> >> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: >> >> >> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That >> >> >> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is >> >> >> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one >celled life >> >> >> form. >> >> >> Jason >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to >> >> >tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in >> >> >his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which >> >> >there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred >> >> >years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in spite of >> >> >being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as >> >> >any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on >> >> >sundays. >> >> >> >> >> >> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction >> >> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". >> >> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated >> >> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very >> >> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. >> >> >> >> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies >> >> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian >> >> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! >> >> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. >> >> >> >> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". >> >> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned >> >> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea >> >> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. >> >> >> >> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped >> >> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME >> >> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and >> >> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). >> >> >> >> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" >> >> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' >> >> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very >> >> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' >> >> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt >> >> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be >> >> constructed. >> >> >> >> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. >> >> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off >> >> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, >> >> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice >> >> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a >> >> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) >> > >> >The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not >> >allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. >> >> No, the problem is that you refuse to accept scientific discoveries and >> are stamping your feel like a toddler who can't have his way. Your >> claims about the history of life on earth are false. Repeating them will >> not make them true. >> >> >They don't even like it when college professors teach college students >> >about creation science. Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the >> >Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not >> >allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed. >> >The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design >> >to be taught in the public schools system. The evolutionists are the new >> >fascist. Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an >> >advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of >> >course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted >> >tenure. >> >> Your understanding of the case is wrong. Please, stop offering your >> opinion about things that you are ignorant of. > >Since you know more than I do about that story--do you believe the >professor would have been denied or granted tenure if he had been an >advocate of evolution? > It appears that his dabbling in creationism distracted him from his actual job in astronomy, but if he had been equally distracted by something else in science, he still would have been denied tenure because he wasn't doing the job he was hired to do. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3t1ko$i75$01$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Mike wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <1180749228.575786.231970@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Martin >>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Jun 2, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 >>>> questions for >>>>>>>> evolutionists" >>>>>>>> 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home >>>>>>>> 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the >>>> universe - what >>>>>>>> banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not >>>> God? Where >>>>>>>> did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space >>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>> from that the bang expanded into? >>>>>>> Where do you think your God came from? >>>>>> You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students >>>>>> get >>>>>> away with that? >>>>> You're answering my question with a question. Should we let you get >>>>> away with that? >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>> Martin, >>>> I realize that you don't have much respect for my knowledge of science. >>> Oh, we have LOTS of respect for your knowledge of science. The whole >>> problem is that such knowledge is probably limited to about 2 words and >>> then you go off on this side track of religion that is so stupid as to >>> be laughable. >>> >>>> That is the reason I tried to find some information from someone that has >>>> as much knowledge as you. Dr. Steven Weinberg was a Nobel prize >>>> winner--his field was physics. I found this information at the American >>>> Institute of Physics website: >>> <snip speech from Dr. Weinberg> >>> >>> How, exactly, did that help your position? If you actually READ what he >>> said, you'd realize he was arguing AGAINST your stand on things. >> I am pretty sure he regrets having posted this.... >> >> It was a nice article, though. Maybe he should refine his "speed >> reading" some more.... >> >> >> Tokay > > I enjoyed reading it. The conclusion was that he was in favor of > intelligent design being taught in the public school system. It was his > opinion that the students would realize that evolution was the superior > theory. I disagree. I believe that many of the students would come to the > conclusion that intelligent design was the superior theory. Most > evolutionists do not want intelligent design to be taught since they fear > that many students would realize that intelligent design was the superior > theory. > jason > > Whooot? Maybe you should read it again? You cannot see this, of course, but my neighbors certainly are wondering why I am laughing do hard... Really. Read it again. Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <7e0463924hsf1dav96a6uvub3d0qqr66vj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:21:32 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a >>> Christian at least during some years of his life. >> Where did you get that? From your mistaken belief that there's only >> one theory of evolution and that Charles Darwin is the person who >> proposed it? He isn't even the only person who proposed the theory of >> common descent through natural selection - which is the ONLY theory >> about evolution he proposed. >> >> Steven J. Gould is another person who proposed ONE OF the THEORIES of >> evolution, and he was NEVER a Christian. > > Al, > Thanks. I googled Charles Darwin and found a site that had the last > chapter of his book. I read it. He mentioned the "Creator" in that > chapter. One of the sites indicated that he was a Christian during his > younger years but I could not find any evidence to indicate that he was a > Christian during the last part of this life. I have never researched the > life of Steven J. Gould. I seem to recall reading an article in the ICR > newsletter about Mr. Gould. > Jason > > "The life of"... ARGS. I don't care. Why are you people so obsessed with that? I don't give a f....k if the german chancellor had three wives? (Well, the former one, actually. Four, IIRC. But I couldn't care less, if Merkel had three wives. At once. Simultaneously. For those of you who do not know. It is ANGELA Merkel. A woman. I don't care! I don't like her, but that has nothing to do with her politics. Which is what matters) "The life of..." Hell, what about his work? THAT is the important point! Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <7e0463924hsf1dav96a6uvub3d0qqr66vj@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:21:32 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a > >Christian at least during some years of his life. > > Where did you get that? From your mistaken belief that there's only > one theory of evolution and that Charles Darwin is the person who > proposed it? He isn't even the only person who proposed the theory of > common descent through natural selection - which is the ONLY theory > about evolution he proposed. > > Steven J. Gould is another person who proposed ONE OF the THEORIES of > evolution, and he was NEVER a Christian. Al, Thanks. I googled Charles Darwin and found a site that had the last chapter of his book. I read it. He mentioned the "Creator" in that chapter. One of the sites indicated that he was a Christian during his younger years but I could not find any evidence to indicate that he was a Christian during the last part of this life. I have never researched the life of Steven J. Gould. I seem to recall reading an article in the ICR newsletter about Mr. Gould. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <kb14639jhm2blku18rlfbu04og9sinkvuf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:34:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0206071334340001@66-52-22-85.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, > >luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble > >> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> >> > >> > >> >> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a > >> >> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last > >> >> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent > >> >> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" > >> >> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with > >> >> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life > >> >> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last > >> >> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point that he > >> >> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: > >> >> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That > >> >> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is > >> >> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one celled life > >> >> form. > >> >> Jason > >> > > >> > > >> >Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to > >> >tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in > >> >his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which > >> >there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred > >> >years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in spite of > >> >being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as > >> >any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on > >> >sundays. > >> > >> > >> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction > >> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". > >> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated > >> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very > >> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. > >> > >> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies > >> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian > >> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! > >> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. > >> > >> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". > >> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned > >> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea > >> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. > >> > >> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped > >> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME > >> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and > >> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). > >> > >> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" > >> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' > >> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very > >> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' > >> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt > >> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be > >> constructed. > >> > >> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. > >> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off > >> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, > >> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice > >> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a > >> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) > > > >The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not > >allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. > > No, the problem is that you refuse to accept scientific discoveries and > are stamping your feel like a toddler who can't have his way. Your > claims about the history of life on earth are false. Repeating them will > not make them true. > > >They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > >about creation science. Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the > >Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not > >allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed. > >The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design > >to be taught in the public schools system. The evolutionists are the new > >fascist. Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > >advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of > >course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > >tenure. > > Your understanding of the case is wrong. Please, stop offering your > opinion about things that you are ignorant of. Since you know more than I do about that story--do you believe the professor would have been denied or granted tenure if he had been an advocate of evolution? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <1180829807.585708.38440@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 3:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > It's the logical conclusion of the advocates of creation science that God > > created mankind. > > You keep saying that Jason and eventually you might believe it. > > Martin Martin, That was a good one. I do believe it. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <f3t1ko$i75$01$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Mike wrote: > > Jason wrote: > >> In article <1180749228.575786.231970@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >> Martin > >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Jun 2, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 2, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>> Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 > >> questions for > >>>>>> evolutionists" > >>>>>> 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home > >>>>>> 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the > >> universe - what > >>>>>> banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not > >> God? Where > >>>>>> did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space > >>>>>> come > >>>>>> from that the bang expanded into? > >>>>> Where do you think your God came from? > >>>> You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students > >>>> get > >>>> away with that? > >>> You're answering my question with a question. Should we let you get > >>> away with that? > >>> > >>> Martin > >> > >> Martin, > >> I realize that you don't have much respect for my knowledge of science. > > > > Oh, we have LOTS of respect for your knowledge of science. The whole > > problem is that such knowledge is probably limited to about 2 words and > > then you go off on this side track of religion that is so stupid as to > > be laughable. > > > >> That is the reason I tried to find some information from someone that has > >> as much knowledge as you. Dr. Steven Weinberg was a Nobel prize > >> winner--his field was physics. I found this information at the American > >> Institute of Physics website: > > > > <snip speech from Dr. Weinberg> > > > > How, exactly, did that help your position? If you actually READ what he > > said, you'd realize he was arguing AGAINST your stand on things. > > I am pretty sure he regrets having posted this.... > > It was a nice article, though. Maybe he should refine his "speed > reading" some more.... > > > Tokay I enjoyed reading it. The conclusion was that he was in favor of intelligent design being taught in the public school system. It was his opinion that the students would realize that evolution was the superior theory. I disagree. I believe that many of the students would come to the conclusion that intelligent design was the superior theory. Most evolutionists do not want intelligent design to be taught since they fear that many students would realize that intelligent design was the superior theory. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <f3t1f1$i75$01$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3rg71$rer$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb69g@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>> <Jason-0106071829510001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>> In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmdnh8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>> <Jason-0106071801100001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg6v1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071735240001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>>>> In article <1180735061.142997.73300@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. > >>>>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the apes and > >>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the > >>> gorilla > >>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw fecal > >>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed > >>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to > >>> confuse > >>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution. > >>>>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? > >>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use fire? > >>>>>> Does your entire theology rely on the fact that humans learned to tame > >>>>>> fire and other animals did not? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Wow.... > >>>>> No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference between mankind and > >>>>> animals. > >>>> It's a trivial behavioral difference. > >>>> > >>>>> I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships God and > >>>>> that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans worship God. > >>>> Another trivial difference. > >>> Another major difference: > >>> IQ levels--much lower than normal people. > >>> > >>> also: Animals can not have conversations with people by talking. > >>> > >>> > >> Actually, they can. You should really start reading some scientific > >> stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign language. So they > >> can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited to sound. > >> What was your point again? > >> > >> > >> Tokay > > > > My point is that they can not have converations with people BY TALKING. > > I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sounds. We are > communicating by internet. No sound? > > > > Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feeder outside her window. > > When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on her window to > > let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. After she refilled > > the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Dogs let their > > owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign language. Do you > > think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a 12 year old > > child? > > Hardly. But that is not the question. > > Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the solution > > to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a low IQ. > > jason > > Ah, so the difference is one of IQ? > > You are on very thin ice, let me tell you..... > > > Tokay I have provided three separate reasons. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <0t24639nbd3ap8a97jgmd16tu7t4heqvd8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:25:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0206071825200001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <kb14639jhm2blku18rlfbu04og9sinkvuf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:34:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0206071334340001@66-52-22-85.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, > >> >luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble > >> >> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a > >> >> >> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last > >> >> >> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent > >> >> >> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" > >> >> >> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I > >am with > >> >> >> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life > >> >> >> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last > >> >> >> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point > >that he > >> >> >> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: > >> >> >> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That > >> >> >> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is > >> >> >> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one > >celled life > >> >> >> form. > >> >> >> Jason > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to > >> >> >tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in > >> >> >his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which > >> >> >there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred > >> >> >years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in spite of > >> >> >being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as > >> >> >any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on > >> >> >sundays. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction > >> >> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". > >> >> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated > >> >> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very > >> >> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. > >> >> > >> >> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies > >> >> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian > >> >> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! > >> >> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. > >> >> > >> >> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". > >> >> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned > >> >> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea > >> >> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. > >> >> > >> >> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped > >> >> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME > >> >> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and > >> >> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). > >> >> > >> >> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" > >> >> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' > >> >> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very > >> >> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' > >> >> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt > >> >> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be > >> >> constructed. > >> >> > >> >> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. > >> >> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off > >> >> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, > >> >> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice > >> >> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a > >> >> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) > >> > > >> >The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not > >> >allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. > >> > >> No, the problem is that you refuse to accept scientific discoveries and > >> are stamping your feel like a toddler who can't have his way. Your > >> claims about the history of life on earth are false. Repeating them will > >> not make them true. > >> > >> >They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > >> >about creation science. Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the > >> >Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not > >> >allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed. > >> >The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design > >> >to be taught in the public schools system. The evolutionists are the new > >> >fascist. Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > >> >advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of > >> >course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > >> >tenure. > >> > >> Your understanding of the case is wrong. Please, stop offering your > >> opinion about things that you are ignorant of. > > > >Since you know more than I do about that story--do you believe the > >professor would have been denied or granted tenure if he had been an > >advocate of evolution? > > > It appears that his dabbling in creationism distracted him from his > actual job in astronomy, but if he had been equally distracted by > something else in science, he still would have been denied tenure > because he wasn't doing the job he was hired to do. What about those professors that have graduate students teach classes for them? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <f3t24v$7mv$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, > > luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble > >> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>>> > >>>> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a > >>>> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last > >>>> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent > >>>> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" > >>>> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with > >>>> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life > >>>> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last > >>>> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point that he > >>>> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: > >>>> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That > >>>> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is > >>>> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one celled life > >>>> form. > >>>> Jason > >>> > >>> Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to > >>> tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in > >>> his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which > >>> there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred > >>> years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in spite of > >>> being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as > >>> any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on > >>> sundays. > >> > >> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction > >> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". > >> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated > >> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very > >> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. > >> > >> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies > >> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian > >> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! > >> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. > >> > >> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". > >> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned > >> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea > >> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. > >> > >> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped > >> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME > >> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and > >> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). > >> > >> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" > >> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' > >> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very > >> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' > >> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt > >> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be > >> constructed. > >> > >> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. > >> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off > >> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, > >> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice > >> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a > >> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) > > > > The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not > > allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. > > If it's a valid theory, no problem. We explained at length what a valid > scientific theory must be. Which criteria it must fulfill. ID simply and > plainly fails said criterias. > > > They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > > about creation science. > > See above. > > Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the > > Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not > > allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed. > > The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design > > to be taught in the public schools system. > > NOT in SCIENCE CLASS! It FAILS all criteria. So it is not science! Teach > it all you like. Around here the class is termed "Religion" (pronounce > it german). Or "Ethik". (It IS taught, just not in science class.) > > The evolutionists are the new > > fascist. > > lol > > Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > > advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). > > That depends what class he wanted to teach. If it was sociology, he can > be my guest. If it was biology, he is out. Nor science. Simple, actually. > > Of > > course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > > tenure. > > Depends. If he wanted to teach sociology, What is his qualification? > > > Tokay I was told he taught astronomy classes. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 20 Questions for Evolutionists 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches? 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source? 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve? 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards? 7. Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old? 8. Where did all the helium go? 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?" 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? 12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? 13. How did the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How did that first cell reproduce? 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA? 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon's origin? 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate? 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following twenty-one features of the earth: The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons Mid-Oceanic Ridge Continental Shelves and Slopes Ocean Trenches Seamounts and Tablemounts Earthquakes Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor Submarine Canyons Coal and Oil Formations Glaciers and the Ice Ages Frozen Mammoths Major Mountain Ranges Overthrusts Volcanoes and Lava Geothermal Heat Metamorphic Rock Strata Plateaus Salt Domes Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Fossil Graveyards If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your explanation and refer you to 77 pages that explain them all as a result of a global flood. For the Answers to these questions....... Go to CreationScience.com Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 10:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism > for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, > could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? You don't walk a mile without taking one step at a time. Besides, that "macro evolution" has occured is clear from the fossil records. An caterpillars DO become become butterflies but that's a metamorphosis, not evolution. > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there > if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable > transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all > living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? Every living thing that reproduces is a transitional form: you are not exactly the same as your paents and your children would not be the same as you. Gradual changes over time is the driving force of evolution. And a reasonably smooth continuum is exactly what we see in the fossil records, especially with regards to the descent of man, which is something which has been studied to great deal and for whom ancesters have been found going back one, two, three, even seven million years. > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary > tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches? Insects are invertibrates. Most animals are invertibrates. Only fish, anphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (including humans) are veribrates (ie have a spinal cord). > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could > ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that > are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers > received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people > would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't > the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also > imply an intelligent source? There is direct evidence (already posted) that RNA can form from protein chains. This is a reversal of the process by which RNA produces proteins. So presumably RNA would then produce DNA: it's chemically possible. Once you have viral DNA then biological evolution begins... one step at a time and over three and a half billion years until finally we appeared. > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain > of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How > could a bacterial motor evolve? The eyes and ears are just recptors. Look at a worm: they don't even have eyes but they do have a primative nervous system. From the nervous system developed the brain and then the brain needed means by which to take in information: these receptors eveolved over time so that we now have eyes and ears. > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? > Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards? The solar system didn't "evolve": the planets came together as a result of graviational forces. Planets could spin ion either direction: it's just a matter of chance. When you let water out of your sink does the water always spin in the same direction? The conservation of angular momentum says that objects will continue to spin in the direction they started spinning. That's it. > 7. Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old? We have comets because the solar system is mostly empty space now which means that the comets have not been captured by any planets. A comet (or part of a comet) was believed to have struck Siberia back circa 1900 and caused an explosion greater than the force of any hydrogen bomb man has ever made. > 8. Where did all the helium go? The sun is filled with helium. As helium is an inert gas and is very light it tends to drift off into the upper atmosphere: just watch what happens when you fill a helium balloon! > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? Asked and answered. Asexual reproduction came first. We do have single celled organisms that are capable of sexual reproduction. If anything, sexual reproduction is evidence in favour of evolution: it disproves the notion that anything as complex as the human body could have developed from a single cell. (In fact we all developed from single cells, namely fertilized eggs). > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us > and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac > Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?" Study a bit of information theory and a little bit of chaos theory, A little bit of information can produce a great deal of complexity: a butterfly flapping his wings can result in a hurricane on the other side of the world. Things really do happen by chance: no god is needed to control the weather and no god was needed to create the universe. > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? Because they had floods. > 12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and > even the laws of physics? Where did God come from? What about daemons, angels, hell and even heaven? At least we know that matter, space, time, energy and the laws of energy are real: your religion is nonsense. We can talk about space-time rotations and matter-energy conversions but your religion is just a matter of belief. > 13. How did the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than > for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How did that first cell reproduce? Asked many times. Answered many times. 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. > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did > it not have oxygen? Actually, the atmosphere didn't became oxygen rich until plantlife (with photosynthesis) developed. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae ) > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? Because meteorites vapourize on impact. > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take > vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that > hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? It took 20 billion years to go from hydrogen to humans. If it takes intelligence to make a human being then why doesn't it take vastly moe intelligence to make God? > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can > only be produced by DNA? Asked and answered. Proteins came first. Proteins have even been created in the laboratory starting from base chemicals. That abiogenesis can occur has been PROVEN. You said that if you were shown proof that abiogenesis could occur then you would stop being a creationist. You lied. > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got > there--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't > students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary > theories for the moon's origin? Who cares? What does this have to do with evolution? The moon either formed with the Earth or was captured by the Earth later. There are no "evolutionary" theories of the moon's origin because the moon isn't a living thing. Why, Jason, do you always quote from people who don't even understand the theory of evolution and yet claim to have disproven it? Are these your "scientists" talking? > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific > debate? Why do creationists lie? Scientific journals debate the merits of evolution all the time. It is not our fault if creationists are unable to understand the issues discussed and are unable to participate. And formal debates happen all the time. http://richarddawkins.net/article,825,The-God-Debate,Sam-Harris-Rick-Warren-Newsweek http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3130360 http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/08/20050810_a_main.asp Note that no creationist has ever offered a shred of evidence in any debate nor refuted any of the evidence brought forth by real scientists. > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following > twenty-one features of the earth: > > The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons Ice Age glacier drift. > Mid-Oceanic Ridge > Continental Shelves and Slopes > Ocean Trenches > Seamounts and Tablemounts > Earthquakes > Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor > Submarine Canyons All continental drift. > Coal and Oil Formations Fossil fuels: animal and plant oils over time formed petroloeum. > Glaciers and the Ice Ages Natural climactic cycle. > Frozen Mammoths It got cold very suddenly, no doubt as a result of strong winds. > Major Mountain Ranges Continental drift. > Overthrusts http://home.entouch.net/dmd/othrust.htm > Volcanoes and Lava > Geothermal Heat Obviously it is hot under the ground. The Earth formed hot and only the surface cooled. The ground is an excellent insulator and the heat only comes through vents and floes. > Metamorphic Rock http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow1/oct98/create/metamorph.htm > Strata Sedimentation on the ocean floor. > Plateaus A plateau is just a relatively flat area of ground with no holes or mountains. If the Earth were perfectly round then it would just be one big plateau. It isn't perfectly round because the Earth took a long time to cool and so the Earth's crust is uneven. Also, the Earth was struck by meteors and had to reform. So what? > Salt Domes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_dome > Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Continental drift > Fossil Graveyards Animals died and left behind fossils. > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your > explanation and refer you to 77 pages that explain them all as a result of > a global flood. There was no global flood. (See http://www.flood-myth.com ). There simply isn't enough water on Earth to flood the entire Earth up to the mountains. It's a myth based on a legend. Period. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 10:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism > for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, > could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? You don't walk a mile without taking one step at a time. Besides, that "macro evolution" has occured is clear from the fossil records. An caterpillars DO become become butterflies but that's a metamorphosis, not evolution. > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there > if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable > transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all > living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? Every living thing that reproduces is a transitional form: you are not exactly the same as your paents and your children would not be the same as you. Gradual changes over time is the driving force of evolution. And a reasonably smooth continuum is exactly what we see in the fossil records, especially with regards to the descent of man, which is something which has been studied to great deal and for whom ancesters have been found going back one, two, three, even seven million years. > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary > tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches? Insects are invertibrates. Most animals are invertibrates. Only fish, anphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (including humans) are veribrates (ie have a spinal cord). > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could > ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that > are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers > received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people > would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't > the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also > imply an intelligent source? There is direct evidence (already posted) that RNA can form from protein chains. This is a reversal of the process by which RNA produces proteins. So presumably RNA would then produce DNA: it's chemically possible. Once you have viral DNA then biological evolution begins... one step at a time and over three and a half billion years until finally we appeared. > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain > of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How > could a bacterial motor evolve? The eyes and ears are just recptors. Look at a worm: they don't even have eyes but they do have a primative nervous system. From the nervous system developed the brain and then the brain needed means by which to take in information: these receptors eveolved over time so that we now have eyes and ears. > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? > Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards? The solar system didn't "evolve": the planets came together as a result of graviational forces. Planets could spin ion either direction: it's just a matter of chance. When you let water out of your sink does the water always spin in the same direction? The conservation of angular momentum says that objects will continue to spin in the direction they started spinning. That's it. > 7. Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old? We have comets because the solar system is mostly empty space now which means that the comets have not been captured by any planets. A comet (or part of a comet) was believed to have struck Siberia back circa 1900 and caused an explosion greater than the force of any hydrogen bomb man has ever made. > 8. Where did all the helium go? The sun is filled with helium. As helium is an inert gas and is very light it tends to drift off into the upper atmosphere: just watch what happens when you fill a helium balloon! > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? Asked and answered. Asexual reproduction came first. We do have single celled organisms that are capable of sexual reproduction. If anything, sexual reproduction is evidence in favour of evolution: it disproves the notion that anything as complex as the human body could have developed from a single cell. (In fact we all developed from single cells, namely fertilized eggs). > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us > and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac > Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?" Study a bit of information theory and a little bit of chaos theory, A little bit of information can produce a great deal of complexity: a butterfly flapping his wings can result in a hurricane on the other side of the world. Things really do happen by chance: no god is needed to control the weather and no god was needed to create the universe. > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? Because they had floods. > 12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and > even the laws of physics? Where did God come from? What about daemons, angels, hell and even heaven? At least we know that matter, space, time, energy and the laws of energy are real: your religion is nonsense. We can talk about space-time rotations and matter-energy conversions but your religion is just a matter of belief. > 13. How did the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than > for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How did that first cell reproduce? Asked many times. Answered many times. 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. > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did > it not have oxygen? Actually, the atmosphere didn't became oxygen rich until plantlife (with photosynthesis) developed. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae ) > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? Because meteorites vapourize on impact. > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take > vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that > hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? It took 20 billion years to go from hydrogen to humans. If it takes intelligence to make a human being then why doesn't it take vastly moe intelligence to make God? > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can > only be produced by DNA? Asked and answered. Proteins came first. Proteins have even been created in the laboratory starting from base chemicals. That abiogenesis can occur has been PROVEN. You said that if you were shown proof that abiogenesis could occur then you would stop being a creationist. You lied. > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got > there--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't > students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary > theories for the moon's origin? Who cares? What does this have to do with evolution? The moon either formed with the Earth or was captured by the Earth later. There are no "evolutionary" theories of the moon's origin because the moon isn't a living thing. Why, Jason, do you always quote from people who don't even understand the theory of evolution and yet claim to have disproven it? Are these your "scientists" talking? > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific > debate? Why do creationists lie? Scientific journals debate the merits of evolution all the time. It is not our fault if creationists are unable to understand the issues discussed and are unable to participate. And formal debates happen all the time. http://richarddawkins.net/article,825,The-God-Debate,Sam-Harris-Rick-Warren-Newsweek http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3130360 http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/08/20050810_a_main.asp Note that no creationist has ever offered a shred of evidence in any debate nor refuted any of the evidence brought forth by real scientists. > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following > twenty-one features of the earth: > > The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons Ice Age glacier drift. > Mid-Oceanic Ridge > Continental Shelves and Slopes > Ocean Trenches > Seamounts and Tablemounts > Earthquakes > Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor > Submarine Canyons All continental drift. > Coal and Oil Formations Fossil fuels: animal and plant oils over time formed petroloeum. > Glaciers and the Ice Ages Natural climactic cycle. > Frozen Mammoths It got cold very suddenly, no doubt as a result of strong winds. > Major Mountain Ranges Continental drift. > Overthrusts http://home.entouch.net/dmd/othrust.htm > Volcanoes and Lava > Geothermal Heat Obviously it is hot under the ground. The Earth formed hot and only the surface cooled. The ground is an excellent insulator and the heat only comes through vents and floes. > Metamorphic Rock http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow1/oct98/create/metamorph.htm > Strata Sedimentation on the ocean floor. > Plateaus A plateau is just a relatively flat area of ground with no holes or mountains. If the Earth were perfectly round then it would just be one big plateau. It isn't perfectly round because the Earth took a long time to cool and so the Earth's crust is uneven. Also, the Earth was struck by meteors and had to reform. So what? > Salt Domes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_dome > Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Continental drift > Fossil Graveyards Animals died and left behind fossils. > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your > explanation and refer you to 77 pages that explain them all as a result of > a global flood. There was no global flood. (See http://www.flood-myth.com ). There simply isn't enough water on Earth to flood the entire Earth up to the mountains. It's a myth based on a legend. Period. Martin Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:41:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: > > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html > What's the mechanism >for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? Mutation. Natural selection >How, for example, >could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? It transforms, dumbshit. > > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there >if your theory is right? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could >ever assemble itself? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html > or the ear http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html > or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html > How could a bacterial motor evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html > > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Oh for fucks sake, Hovind: this has nothing to do with evolution. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with evolution, either. That is in the field of COSMOLOGY and ASTROPHYSICS, moron. Stop believing Kent Hovind. He's a liar and a con-artist. > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html > > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information It's not information. > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? Because the started near rivers. > > 12. Where did matter come from? Where did god come from? > What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? > > 13. How did the first living cell begin? No one really knows, but it's not a miracle. How did god begin? Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. I'll keep repeating that until you understand that you can't special plead. > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did >it not have oxygen? Didn't. > > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? We do find them there in their remnants. Search for "iridium layer" in google. You'll find something interesting. > > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take >vastly more intelligence to create a human? Why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence than that to create god? > Do you really believe that >hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? Only if you want to strawman evolution, which clearly you do. > > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can >only be produced by DNA? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html > > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got >there http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html >--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't >students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary >theories for the moon's origin? There AREN'T any evolutionary theories for it because IT'S NOT PART OF EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. IT'S PART OF ASTROPHYSICS/COSMOLOGY, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific >debate? Because they don't want to dirty themselves with the laughable bullshit of creationists. > > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following >twenty-one features of the earth: No. I've humored you enough > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >explanation No, you won't. You will just point us to a place that closes its eyes and screams "gawddidit" over and over. 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 cactus Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180776532.883015.87460@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble > <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1 jun, 20:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180716486.667819.173...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>> <1180589009.623007.230...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin> > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 31, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article >>> <1180580639.377592.70...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 9:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, > "Christopher >>>>>>>>>>> Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:Jason-3005071302390001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you believe that journal editors should have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> bias against authors of articles that are advocates of >>>>>>> creation science. >>>>>>>>>>>> They have a bias against poor research not based on factual >>> evidence. >>>>>>>>> There is a >>>>>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>>>>> We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an >>> article and >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned creation science several times in the article, > the journal >>>>>>>>>>> editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and > remove all >>>>>>>>>>> references to creation science. On the other hand, if you > wrote an >>>>>>> article >>>>>>>>>>> and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the >>> ediitors would >>>>>>>>>>> tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my >>>>>>> point? There >>>>>>>>>>> is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. >>> The reason >>>>>>>>>>> is because the editors and members of the peer review > committee are >>>>>>>>>>> advocates of evolution. >>>>>>>>>> Whether you write about creationism or evolution, in either > case your >>>>>>>>>> claims need to be supported by evidence. Evolution is > supported by >>>>>>>>>> evidence. Creationism isn't. It's that simple. It's only > a bias in >>>>>>>>>> favour of the scientific method. >>>>>>>>> Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists > mentioned in the >>>>>>>>> book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton > would agree >>>>>>>>> that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? >>>>>>>> It either is supported by evidence or it isn't. And it isn't. It >>>>>>>> isn't a matter of opinion. No experiment has ever been > conducted to >>>>>>>> demonstrate the existance of any god -nor could any > experiment ever be >>>>>>>> conducted to test anything supernatural- let alone test the > hypothesis >>>>>>>> that any god was responsible for the creation of any form of > life on >>>>>>>> Earth, let alone man. What they may believe is irrelevant: > it doesn't >>>>>>>> change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting >>>>>>>> creationism. >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> Martin, >>>>>>> The only evidence that I have seen is in relation to the > fossil record. >>>>>>> Two different books have been written by advocates of creationism in >>>>>>> relation to the fossil record. One of the authors discusses > the complete >>>>>>> absence of any true evolutionary transitional forms in the fossil >>> record. >>> >>>>>> And that is WRONG! >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils >>>>>> No way around it. The fossils are there . If you like it or not. >>>>>>> I have read one of those books. I suggest that you read the last >>> paragraph >>>>>>> of Chapter 14 of Darwin's famous book--he discusses something > about life >>>>>>> being "breathed into a few forms or into one." Darwin also > mentioned the >>>>>>> "Creator" in that same chapter. It was apparent to me that Darwin >>> believed >>>>>>> in God and was familiar with the lst chapter of Genesis and probably >>>>>>> believed it was true but I am not 100 percent certain. I typed >>> Darwin God >>>>>>> into the google search engine and was able to find lots of evidence >>>>>>> indicating that Darwin (at least during several years of his > life) was a >>>>>>> Christian. I don't know whether or not he was Christian during > the last >>>>>>> several years of his life. There was one site indicating that > Darwin may >>>>>>> have had a deathbed confession of his love of God. >>>>>> Far as I know, this "deathbed conversion" is a hoax. But never > mind, it >>>>>> actually has nothing to do with it. Whether or not Darwin was a >>>>>> Christian does not invalidate his work. >>>>>> So, what do you want to prove there? That Darwin was a > christian? There >>>>>> hardly was a way around that in those times. But what does that say >>>>>> about his work? Nothing, that's what. >>>>>> Tokay >>>>> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a >>>>> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last >>>>> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent >>>>> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" >>>>> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I > am with >>>>> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life >>>>> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last >>>>> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point > that he >>>>> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: >>>>> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That >>>>> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is >>>>> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one > celled life >>>>> form. >>>>> Jason >>>> Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to >>>> tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in >>>> his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which >>>> there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred >>>> years earlier, he could have dared to write this book. So in spite of >>>> being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as >>>> any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on >>>> sundays. In any case, only a few of the gentlemen had knowledge of >>>> this book; most of the gentlemen of that time were virtually >>>> illiterate. The only papers they understood more or less were the >>>> account sheets of earnings and expenses of their states. >>>> So, only the people involved in reading books and argue with other >>>> academics and philosophers were aware of the existence of this book. >>>> So, you are now making a lot noise about nothing. It recalled me of >>>> RCC bishops defaming "The Da Vince Code" novel. The more they talk >>>> about this book, the most people buy it. >>>> Bramble >>> Bramble, >>> Yes, you are correct related to the life and times of Darwin. However, my >>> point was that lots of people seem to think that Darwin was a atheist his >>> entire life--that is NOT true. It's possible that he always believed in >>> God even if he did not always go to church every Sunday. I only read the >>> last chapter of his book and noticed that he used the term Creator at >>> least one time in that chapter. I don't know whether or not he used the >>> term in other chapters of his book. He also used these words in the last >>> paragraph of Chapter 14--"...having been originally breathed into a few >>> forms or into one...." I read that paragraph two times and it was >>> difficult to figure out his point. However, those words are similar to the >>> information that is in the first chapter of Genesis. It's my opinion, >>> based upon what I read in Chapter 14 of Darwin's book, that Darwin >>> believed that God created life on this planet. Of course, he also believed >>> that evolution kicked in after the creation process was finished. >>> Jason >> >> there is not any need of thinking that Darwin was an atheist the way >> some people nowadays are. The religous feeling was so strong in those >> times, at least among educated people, that is no rare that he would >> keep using the word creator, god, or whatever. It is a habit. I >> still exclame from time to time, "oh,my god!" Depending to who I >> could be speaking to, I could even say, "God created all humans >> equal". So habits are habits, and there is not any need to confess to >> anyone that I am atheist. In fact, I behave as if I were a believer. >> And I think, this is valid for a lot of people. Many people, perhaps >> two thirds of them, are matter of fact atheists. But lacking a bent >> for philosophy they never elaborate a system of thought to become >> atheists. In any case, they don't want to stand out as thinking >> different to others. That is the reason why most people pertains to >> the dominant religion of the country. >> In a catholic country they are catholics, in a muslim one they are >> muslim, and so on. To understand this sociological fact, you have to >> know something about the social experiment of psychologist Solomon >> Asch, about how most people accept the blatant wrong opinions of >> other people about reality. You can read about this in the wikipedia >> "Asch conformity experiments". People confronted with wrong >> declarations of others about which line is bigger, A or B, declare the >> same wrong opinion. Only a minorty of the people tested dare to >> challenge the wrong opinion of others. To produce these results, the >> experimenters needed some helpers that were giving wrong results >> before the real person to be tested was asked. >> So, you know why most people confess they believe in god. It shows he >> complies with the dominant wrong ideas people are declaring. >> In a way, the real miracle is that a small minority dare to >> challenge the believe in god that most people seem to uphold. They >> had been badly pissed by some religious people. A few of the atheist >> I heard talking in "alt.atheism" were sons of JW, or mormon, fathers, >> that sufocated them since childhood. >> It is all right to press religion a little, but you cannot sufocate >> the child with so much religious fanaticism. You have to accept he >> has a bit of freedom, he could sometimes reject a sunday service, just >> to prove he has a free will. So normal religious people, can tame any >> child into compliance of the main tennets of the faith. The trouble >> always come from fanatics. And fanaticism begets rejection and hate. >> I have not any problems with ordinary religious people. But we are >> living now an assault from fanatics, as in other times we were >> suffering from the communism fanaticism. All doctrines carried to the >> extreme are wrong and beget a feeling of rejection. >> Bramble > > Bramble, > Thanks for your post. My point was that Darwin appeared to me to believe > that the creator created life on this planet. Children should not be > forced to worship God. Several years ago, some advocates intelligent > design wanted to teach both evolution and intelligent design in science > classes. I thought it was great idea to present two separate theories to > high schoold students. The intelligent design textbook did NOT mention God > or anything about the Bible. The advocates of evolution done everything in > their power to prevent that state from teaching intelligent design in > science classes. The judge listened to the evidence and ruled that > intelligent design theory could NOT be taught in public schools in that > state. I ask you --who were the fanatics in that case? The fanatics were the ones trying to impose what amounts to a religious doctrine without scientific support into science classes. They are so fanatical that they keep trying no matter how they are thwarted: at the ballot box, in court, or in school boards. You call the judge a fanatic because he ruled with the Constitution and against forcing non-science into science classes. Why do you ally yourself with the forces of darkness and ignorance? In that case, who > were the fanatics that wanted to suffocate the children with evolution and > not allow an alternative theory to be taught? I will not allow children to have meritless "intelligent design" drivel crammed down their throats by Christian fanatics. It's very different in many > Christian schools. Those are private schools. They can teach pretty much what they want. In many Christian schools, children are taught > evolution theory and creation science. Too bad for them. The children in Christian schools > actually have more freedom to learn alternative theories than the children > that are in public schools. No they don't. Creationism is their only choice. BTW "intelligent design" is simply a variant of creationism. What do you think happens to a student who favors evolutionary theory over creationism? Hint: it won't be pleasant. Some freedom. If evolutionists were certain that their > theory was far superior to intelligent design theory, they would not be > concerned when alternative theories such as intelligent design were taught > in various states. Of course there is cause for concern. It's the same as not allowing the Ptolemaic model of the universe to be taught in astronomy class - it takes time away from teaching the current understanding. It appeared to me that the evolutionists were concerned > that the children in public schools would realize that intelligent design > made more sense than evolution theory. No, we just don't want drivel taught unnecessarily. > I ask you--who are the fanatics--the evolutionists that refuse to allow > any states to teach alternative theories or is it the advocates of > intelligent design that want children to about two theories--the theory or > evolution and the theory of intelligent design? The latter. They are wrong, they have no scientific backing for their beliefs, and they are trying to force their religious views on those who may not share them. And they want to do it on public school time. 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.