Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
12 Jun 2005 01:01:43 PM |
|
|
Terrell, do you comprehend that your answer is only acceptable to one
who has already accepted your religion? Other scriptures state quite
clearly that e.g. Allah does exist. Do you accept those scriptures as
truth, just like you expect others to accept yours as truth?
Your answer comes down to "the bible is true, because it's written in
the bible that it's true". If one doesn't accept the bible, tough
luck... it's true. And if you don't believe it's true, read the bible
because it says quite clearly it's true.
Circular reasoning has been universally accepted as a fallacy for far
longer than your religion has existed.
You have not answered the question.
Religion typically pretends to answer questions in ways that lowers the
total number of unanswered questions without adding any usable
information.
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
12 Jun 2005 02:23:30 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2005 11:01:43 -0700, wrote:
Terrell, do you comprehend that your answer is only acceptable to one
who has already accepted your religion? Other scriptures state quite
clearly that e.g. Allah does exist. Do you accept those scriptures as
truth, just like you expect others to accept yours as truth?
No offense intended, I actually read the post I replied to in
alt.religion.christian and replied to it there - I have no interest in
these other non christian groups up there, but they are in 8 or 10 pt
type, while I have the message pane set to 18pt type so I can read it
- feel free to ignore me.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.lastofall.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
12 Jun 2005 03:18:07 PM |
|
|
Heh, I see your point. This thread has indeed been cross-posted to
several groups, some of which quite unrelated.
Anyway... I see no need to ignore you on the basis of having different
views, just like I appreciate not being ignored for my different views.
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 11:21:24 PM |
|
|
Terrell D Lewis <composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:58:53 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:05:00 GMT, Terrell D Lewis
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7vnma1992o38j8m78ebtrts6t90iihoaq8@4ax.com> wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 14:27:02 -0700, wrote:
Better yet, prove that the thousands of other gods do not exist :-)
Actually those other gods do exist: 1Co 10:20 But I say, that the
things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not
to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Validate your source.
Ah ... 1 Corinthians 10:20
Quoting it again != validation.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
12 Jun 2005 06:02:43 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 23:21:24 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <szk8y1gb3y3.fsf@eris.io.com> wrote:
Terrell D Lewis <composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:58:53 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:05:00 GMT, Terrell D Lewis
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7vnma1992o38j8m78ebtrts6t90iihoaq8@4ax.com> wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 14:27:02 -0700, wrote:
Better yet, prove that the thousands of other gods do not exist :-)
Actually those other gods do exist: 1Co 10:20 But I say, that the
things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not
to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Validate your source.
Ah ... 1 Corinthians 10:20
Quoting it again != validation.
An interesting insight into the mind (?) of a theist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 10:46:57 PM |
|
|
Terrell D Lewis wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:58:53 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:05:00 GMT, Terrell D Lewis
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7vnma1992o38j8m78ebtrts6t90iihoaq8@4ax.com> wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 14:27:02 -0700, wrote:
Better yet, prove that the thousands of other gods do not exist :-)
Actually those other gods do exist: 1Co 10:20 But I say, that the
things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not
to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Validate your source.
Ah ... 1 Corinthians 10:20
Validate 1 Corintians 10:20, then.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 01:35:58 PM |
|
|
societopia.net wrote:
<snip>
God created people.
Cite? And please show why this cite should be credible.
He cares for their needs.
Cite? And please show why this cite should be credible.
Every one needs not to worry
about the welfare of other fellow men because caring for human needs and
welfare entails building an intricate system of human judgment that have,
currently, gone way out of proportion. If every one cared to love his
neighbors; then people would leave room for God's hand to interact with
people.
So, "Love the sinner" means nothing to you, then?
God bless you,
I didn't sneeze.
www.societopia.net
Thank God I'm an atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 01:56:58 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:iaGqe.4006$2K4.1916@trnddc08...
...
So, "Love the sinner" means nothing to you, then?
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is
not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices
with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always
perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
If one loved his neighbors, as Jesus explained the parable of the Samaritan,
then that would include their needs too. But if you forget love and
concentrate on people's welfare you end up in a Societopia where greed over
material possession overcome love for one another and the result becomes
political strife between combatants; each of whom claim to care for the
welfare of people.
[Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your
neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.] Mark
12:2931
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 02:23:08 PM |
|
|
societopia.net wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:iaGqe.4006$2K4.1916@trnddc08...
..
So, "Love the sinner" means nothing to you, then?
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is
not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices
with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always
perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
If one loved his neighbors, as Jesus explained the parable of the Samaritan,
then that would include their needs too. But if you forget love and
concentrate on people's welfare you end up in a Societopia where greed over
material possession overcome love for one another and the result becomes
political strife between combatants; each of whom claim to care for the
welfare of people.
[Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your
neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.] Mark
12:2931
Thank you for these Bible quotes, but why are they relevant? What
credibility should I place on the Bible? To me, it is a fictionalized
account of historical events, containing superstitious occurrences of
what was perceived, at the time, as being supernatural.
Why should I place any credibility in what the Bible has to say?
God bless you,
Again, I didn't sneeze.
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 02:43:37 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:wSGqe.485$yw4.9@trnddc09...
...
Thank you for these Bible quotes, but why are they relevant?
Thank you for your kind question. The Bible quotes are relevant because
they best represent my opinion and I do not wish to plagiarize them so I
reproduce them with proper credit their source.
What
credibility should I place on the Bible?
But you put credibility into the process of democracy where you accept other
people's opinions in the society through a voting process. Similarly if in
the society a significant number of people assume their values from the
Bible you might as well treat its credibility, if not as divinely revealed
book, with the same of standards of democracy.
To me, it is a fictionalized
account of historical events, containing superstitious occurrences of
what was perceived, at the time, as being supernatural.
I have no objection to your assuming the above premise. Though I pray that
people would see it differently.
God bless you,
Again, I didn't sneeze.
Consider it a form of civility in my reality. Similar to "Regards" in the
secular reality with the difference that people write the latter at each
other even when they do not mean it.
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 03:06:28 PM |
|
|
societopia.net wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:wSGqe.485$yw4.9@trnddc09...
..
Thank you for these Bible quotes, but why are they relevant?
Thank you for your kind question. The Bible quotes are relevant because
they best represent my opinion and I do not wish to plagiarize them so I
reproduce them with proper credit their source.
Fair enough, but why should they be relevant if they do not best
represent my opinion?
What
credibility should I place on the Bible?
But you put credibility into the process of democracy where you accept other
people's opinions in the society through a voting process. Similarly if in
the society a significant number of people assume their values from the
Bible you might as well treat its credibility, if not as divinely revealed
book, with the same of standards of democracy.
Sorry, but I refuse to believe something based on the numbers who do
believe it. 64% of Americans believe that aliens have contacted humans,
according to a CNN poll conducted in 1997. Also, 80% of Americans
believe that the US Government is hiding the fact that it knows of the
existence of aliens.
Does this mean that aliens *DO* exist and the that government is hiding
it? This is "argumentum ad populum," which is the fallacy of "appeal to
majority." The flavor of argumentum ad populum that you're bringing is
the "Bandwagon" flavor. It assumes that, because the majority of people
believe a certain thing, that certain thing must be valid.
To me, it is a fictionalized
account of historical events, containing superstitious occurrences of
what was perceived, at the time, as being supernatural.
I have no objection to your assuming the above premise. Though I pray that
people would see it differently.
Sorry, but I will never see it differently...unless God himself were to
make himself known to me. I do not forsee this happening.
God bless you,
Again, I didn't sneeze.
Consider it a form of civility in my reality. Similar to "Regards" in the
secular reality with the difference that people write the latter at each
other even when they do not mean it.
Well, can you say "Regards" instead? "God bless you" is insulting to me.
Regards,
www.societopia.net
See? That's better. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 03:25:13 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:8vHqe.4259$gL4.2829@trnddc07...
....
Fair enough, but why should they be relevant if they do not best
represent my opinion?
You do not have to if you do not see that there is any!
Sorry, but I refuse to believe something based on the numbers who do
believe it.
You do not have to. A discussion on an electronic forum cannot be any more
than an exchange of opinions with other participants.
Well, can you say "Regards" instead? "God bless you" is insulting to me.
Fair enough.
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 03:37:24 PM |
|
|
societopia.net wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:8vHqe.4259$gL4.2829@trnddc07...
...
Fair enough, but why should they be relevant if they do not best
represent my opinion?
You do not have to if you do not see that there is any!
Thank you.
Sorry, but I refuse to believe something based on the numbers who do
believe it.
You do not have to. A discussion on an electronic forum cannot be any more
than an exchange of opinions with other participants.
Thank you.
Well, can you say "Regards" instead? "God bless you" is insulting to me.
Fair enough.
www.societopia.net
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 09:47:46 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 10 Jun 2005 14:20:04 -0700, "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
[off-topic groups removed]
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
The fact that it advocates a myth (creationism, god, etc) in
place of reality. And then proceeds to act as if the myth were the
only truth.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin D" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE? |
11 Jun 2005 07:27:23 PM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
How about taking this 'discussion' to a more appropriate group. This is
a DIGITAL CAMERA group.
Sometimes off-topic discussions drift that way from an originally
on-topic post - but this one started off completely off-topic, and has
run to hundreds of posts so far.
Most of you should know better. Arguments about religion will never be
concluded, the protagonists will never agree, so please go away.
Colin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin D" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE? |
12 Jun 2005 07:09:13 PM |
|
|
Colin D wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
How about taking this 'discussion' to a more appropriate group. This is
a DIGITAL CAMERA group.
Sometimes off-topic discussions drift that way from an originally
on-topic post - but this one started off completely off-topic, and has
run to hundreds of posts so far.
Most of you should know better. Arguments about religion will never be
concluded, the protagonists will never agree, so please go away.
Colin
Well, it seems that both religious idiots AND non-religious idiots have
NO CONSIDERATION of where they post their everlasting pointless
non-resolvable squabbles. No 'do unto others' here, just do your own
thing in the wrong place. This group is a DIGITAL CAMERA GROUP, and
today there are TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN OF your OFF-TOPIC posts.
Very few - if any - of you clutch of clappermouths are interested in
photography, or even know you are posting to multiple groups. Study the
newsgroups listed in the headers to your posts, and for Christ's sake,
DELETE rec.photo.digital.
I perceive that politeness won't work with you religious brain-damaged
fuckwits, OR with the brain-challenged self-aggrandizing egos that think
they can win an argument with a seriously impaired religiosio nutter.
Just maybe, a blunt statement might get through the purple haze
surrounding you idiots. ***** OFF OUT OF THIS GROUP.
And yes, I have left all the groups in the header, to hopefully get this
seen by all of you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "roadweenie" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with GOING SOMEWHEREELSE? |
19 Jun 2005 01:52:06 PM |
|
|
Colin D wrote:
Colin D wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
How about taking this 'discussion' to a more appropriate group. This is
a DIGITAL CAMERA group.
Sometimes off-topic discussions drift that way from an originally
on-topic post - but this one started off completely off-topic, and has
run to hundreds of posts so far.
Most of you should know better. Arguments about religion will never be
concluded, the protagonists will never agree, so please go away.
Colin
Well, it seems that both religious idiots AND non-religious idiots have
NO CONSIDERATION of where they post their everlasting pointless
non-resolvable squabbles. No 'do unto others' here, just do your own
thing in the wrong place. This group is a DIGITAL CAMERA GROUP, and
today there are TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN OF your OFF-TOPIC posts.
Very few - if any - of you clutch of clappermouths are interested in
photography, or even know you are posting to multiple groups. Study the
newsgroups listed in the headers to your posts, and for Christ's sake,
DELETE rec.photo.digital.
I perceive that politeness won't work with you religious brain-damaged
fuckwits, OR with the brain-challenged self-aggrandizing egos that think
they can win an argument with a seriously impaired religiosio nutter.
Just maybe, a blunt statement might get through the purple haze
surrounding you idiots. ***** OFF OUT OF THIS GROUP.
And yes, I have left all the groups in the header, to hopefully get this
seen by all of you.
i have a slide of god, shooting a planned parenthood doctor from his
PERFECTLY restored '47 military jeep.
what is the best scanner to work with this slide?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE? |
19 Jun 2005 02:09:19 PM |
|
|
"roadweenie" <noway@jose.net> wrote in message
news:q9jte.965$Bx6.795@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Colin D wrote:
Colin D wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
How about taking this 'discussion' to a more appropriate group. This is
a DIGITAL CAMERA group.
Sometimes off-topic discussions drift that way from an originally
on-topic post - but this one started off completely off-topic, and has
run to hundreds of posts so far.
Most of you should know better. Arguments about religion will never be
concluded, the protagonists will never agree, so please go away.
Colin
Well, it seems that both religious idiots AND non-religious idiots have
NO CONSIDERATION of where they post their everlasting pointless
non-resolvable squabbles. No 'do unto others' here, just do your own
thing in the wrong place. This group is a DIGITAL CAMERA GROUP, and
today there are TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN OF your OFF-TOPIC posts.
Very few - if any - of you clutch of clappermouths are interested in
photography, or even know you are posting to multiple groups. Study the
newsgroups listed in the headers to your posts, and for Christ's sake,
DELETE rec.photo.digital.
I perceive that politeness won't work with you religious brain-damaged
fuckwits, OR with the brain-challenged self-aggrandizing egos that think
they can win an argument with a seriously impaired religiosio nutter.
Just maybe, a blunt statement might get through the purple haze
surrounding you idiots. ***** OFF OUT OF THIS GROUP.
And yes, I have left all the groups in the header, to hopefully get this
seen by all of you.
i have a slide of god, shooting a planned parenthood doctor from his
PERFECTLY restored '47 military jeep.
what is the best scanner to work with this slide?
I used one of these cute little slide scanners from Costco
http://tinylink.com/?jI65OGcnGZ
to scan my slides of Allah in the co-pilot seat of the airplanes that
crashed into the World Trade Center. Didn't turn out too good though. Kinda
blurry. Maybe Allah's will? What do you think?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jun 2005 05:10:07 AM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
Well, to paraphrase Soul Coughing: "So far I have not found
the science".
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 03:12:11 PM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
Because there have been few, if any, specific examples taken from
www.answersingenesis.com and debunked or refuted, let me take one and
throw it into the mix.
By the way, for all the talk about answersingenesis.com being full of
inaccuracies, lies, and scientific contradiction, there have been very
few examples shown by skeptics. Some Christians do this too; that is,
they say that the theory of evolution is stupid but fail to provide
specifics as to why. Let's do away with this kind of rhetoric and
analyze the science, shall we?
OK. Here we go...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/finches.asp
What is wrong that article?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 04:27:17 PM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
Because there have been few, if any, specific examples taken from
www.answersingenesis.com and debunked or refuted, let me take one and
throw it into the mix.
By the way, for all the talk about answersingenesis.com being full of
inaccuracies, lies, and scientific contradiction, there have been very
few examples shown by skeptics. Some Christians do this too; that is,
they say that the theory of evolution is stupid but fail to provide
specifics as to why. Let's do away with this kind of rhetoric and
analyze the science, shall we?
OK. Here we go...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/finches.asp
What is wrong that article?
It all depends on how one defines "no new genetic information would have
been introduced." How does one define "new genetic information?" What
caused the "'long-beak' information" to come about in some where
"'short-beak' information" exists? Surely, "long-beak" and "short-beak"
are two different sets of information.
When Carl Wieland says, "you can't breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas,"
he's actually saying evolution is true. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are
so distant, biologically speaking, that they cannot interbreed.
However, they're not so distant that they need a new classification, as
Wieland points out, "finches are still finches and dogs are dogs."
The problem arises from human classification. How does one classify a
"dog" versus a "finch"? Well, a finch has wings and a dog does not,
right? Well, an eagle has wings, too, but you wouldn't call an eagle a
finch. Why not? Taxonomically speaking, finches are of the class Aves.
Eagles are of the class Aves. They're both birds, but they cannot
interbreed (though I'd like to see them try! ;-) Just as a chihuahua
cannot interbreed with a Great Dane.
Carl then goes on to say that it only takes 1200 years to transform a
medium ground finch into a cactus finch, thus disproving Darwin's
theory. Darwin, as you know, lived in the 1800s and we, therefore, have
150 years on him. When "The Origin of Species" was released, America
had yet to go to war with itself.
Since then, we've had supersonic jets, telephones, computers, research
into genetics, and so forth, and it can disprove many of Darwin's
theories. For example, Galileo theorized that the sun was the center of
the universe (angering the "Earth is Center" folks). We know that this
is not the case, but Galileo's overarching theory was correct. As is
Darwin's.
Carl then goes on to suggest that macro-evolution is faulty because,
even the speedy changes "have nothing to do with the production of new
genes by mutation". What, exactly, does Carl mean by this? "Long-beak"
genes derived from "short-beak" genes when a drought caused those with
"short-beaks" to die out.
For example, "finch A" has a beak that's 4cm long, classified as a
"short-beak." "finch B" has a beak that's 6cm long, classified as a
"long beak." The food during the drought is at 5cm below the surface.
"Finch A" cannot get to the food. "Finch B," however, can. "Finch A"
dies. However, "finch C" has a beak that is 5cm long. It can get to
the food, so therefore doesn't die. "Finch C" and "finch B" then mate
with each other, making "finch D" with a beak that's 5.5cm long. Now we
have "finch B," "finch C," and "finch D" who are capable of feeding on
the food that is 5cm below the surface. "Finch C" now mates with "finch
D" and creates an offspring, "finch E," with a beak that's 5.75cm long.
At this time, all the food at 5cm is eaten. Food now exists at 5.6cm
deep. "Finch B" cannot reach the food now, and dies. However, by this
time, we have finches of varying beak lengths from 5.75cm to 6cm. How
should you characterize the finches with beak lengths from 5.75cm to
6cm? Should you just "fudge it" and say that all those finches are
"long-beaks" now? Where did this "new information" come from? Our
classification of them.
Next, finches can interspecies mate. Most of the time, this produces
sterile offspring, but viable fertile offspring can occur.
Now we have "blue finch D," with a beak that's 6cm long, and "red finch
A," with a beak that's 5.75cm long. They produce an offspring, "Purple
finch A" that has a beak that is 5.83cm long. Food then disappears at
5.75cm deep. "Red finch A" dies out. This leaves "purple finch A" and
"blue finch D" to live and mate, creating "indigo finch A," whose beak
is mutated. It's 7cm long. He's the laughingstock of the woods.
However, who's laughing when "indigo finch A" mates with "blue finch D"
and produces an offspring at 6.5cm beak length and the food dies out at 6cm?
See how it works? New information from mutation. How we classify the
"new information" however, is arguable.
Finally, in the last paragraph, Carl states that "the Flood" which has
no basis in evidentiary fact, nor does Carl explain this, that "rapid
mutation" is possible. No one said that it's not. However, when does
"indigo finch A" become "indigo starling A?" Carl fails to state this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 06:51:44 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
When Carl Wieland says, "you can't breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas,"
he's actually saying evolution is true. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are
so distant, biologically speaking, that they cannot interbreed.
As far as I know, the only reason Great Danes and Chihuahuas can't
breed is the logistics of doing it. I can't give you a cite,
unfortunately, but I know of Great Danes being inseminated with
Chihuahua sperm, resulting in perfectly healthy, fertile (if
funny-looking) offspring. Both GDs and Chs are Canis familiaris, i.e.,
common dogs. Same species.
Brenda "Not *Just* a Cat Person" Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 06:58:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1118793104.855857.251700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> writes:
DanielSan wrote:
When Carl Wieland says, "you can't breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas,"
he's actually saying evolution is true. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are
so distant, biologically speaking, that they cannot interbreed.
As far as I know, the only reason Great Danes and Chihuahuas can't
breed is the logistics of doing it. I can't give you a cite,
unfortunately, but I know of Great Danes being inseminated with
Chihuahua sperm, resulting in perfectly healthy, fertile (if
funny-looking) offspring. Both GDs and Chs are Canis familiaris, i.e.,
common dogs. Same species.
Brenda "Not *Just* a Cat Person" Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
Okay, now that's just wrong.
Though probably not as wrong as Twisties and Munchkins...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 12:22:52 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Though probably not as wrong as Twisties and Munchkins...
Okay, "Munchkins" are those short-leggedy cats, right? But what are
"Twisties"?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 12:35:43 PM |
|
|
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1118856172.768408.252350@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Though probably not as wrong as Twisties and Munchkins...
Okay, "Munchkins" are those short-leggedy cats, right? But what are
"Twisties"?
Oh my goodness, it's simply awful :(
As my husband likes to say, "Honey, sometimes people just suck".
http://www.messybeast.com/twisty.htm
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sa | | | | | | |
