| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 12:00:54 PM |
| Object: |
Challenge to Creationists |
How does evolution NOT happen?
How can complex life NOT evolve from simple cells that do NOT replicate
perfectly, thereby forcing change? How can the change be anything other
than functional and complex?
How does complexity NOT pile on? How can natural selection create a
trend that is anything other than functional?
Does natural selection phase in the bad developments and phase out the
good ones? No.
To suggest otherwise is like suggesting that water once ran uphill.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Soul food" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 02:23:36 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
How does evolution NOT happen?
How can complex life NOT evolve from simple cells that do NOT replicate
perfectly, thereby forcing change? How can the change be anything other
than functional and complex?
How does complexity NOT pile on? How can natural selection create a
trend that is anything other than functional?
Does natural selection phase in the bad developments and phase out the
good ones? No.
To suggest otherwise is like suggesting that water once ran uphill.
~Iain
Creationism: Goddidit.
Intelligent Design: Goddiditandranaway.
Juttravartid theology: The Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed, and there
was the universe.
The possibilities for an incorrect theory are infinite, and it is not
the duty of reasonable people to argue against nonsense.
------------------------------------------------
"The real dichotomy in today's world is between reason and religion.
The future of civilisation rests upon how many people realise that and do something about it."
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 03:26:21 PM |
|
|
Soul food wrote:
Creationism: Goddidit.
Intelligent Design: Goddiditandranaway.
IDiotic creationuts
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127338201.763730.154090%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Juttravartid theology: The Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed, and there
was the universe.
Everybody that knows anything knows totally-blind-at-every-level
processes didit-- it's common knowledge.
The possibilities for an incorrect theory are infinite, and it is not
the duty of reasonable people to argue against nonsense.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "NashtOn" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 07:18:57 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Soul food wrote:
Creationism: Goddidit.
Intelligent Design: Goddiditandranaway.
IDiotic creationuts
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127338201.763730.154090%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Juttravartid theology: The Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed, and there
was the universe.
Everybody that knows anything knows totally-blind-at-every-level
processes didit-- it's common knowledge.
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
Nicolas
The possibilities for an incorrect theory are infinite, and it is not
the duty of reasonable people to argue against nonsense.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 07:27:27 PM |
|
|
NashtOn wrote:
david ford wrote:
Soul food wrote:
Creationism: Goddidit.
Intelligent Design: Goddiditandranaway.
IDiotic creationuts
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127338201.763730.154090%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Juttravartid theology: The Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed, and there
was the universe.
Everybody that knows anything knows totally-blind-at-every-level
processes didit-- it's common knowledge.
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
Nicolas
NIcky,
You still don't get it, do you? David Ford is on your side. And, if
measured by popularity, creationism wins. However, if measured by the
evidence, evolution wins, since there is no evidence to support
creationism (to the exclusion of evolution, since any evidence supports
"Goddidit"_.
Not even a nice try, Nicky. Perhaps you should crawl back to CSMA.
8^)
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
30 Sep 2005 05:34:26 PM |
|
|
NashtOn wrote:
david ford wrote:
Soul food wrote:
Creationism: Goddidit.
Intelligent Design: Goddiditandranaway.
IDiotic creationuts
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127338201.763730.154090%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Juttravartid theology: The Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed, and there
was the universe.
Everybody that knows anything knows totally-blind-at-every-level
processes didit-- it's common knowledge.
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
You forgot 'evidence.' Observed Dawkins in 1982,
"Darwin's theory [of natural selection] is now supported by all the
available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any
serious modern biologist."
Ref:
Dawkins, Catley, Collingridge & Earthy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981113234219.18273B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
The possibilities for an incorrect theory are infinite, and it is not
the duty of reasonable people to argue against nonsense.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
29 Oct 2005 02:42:35 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
NashtOn wrote:
david ford wrote:
Soul food wrote:
Creationism: Goddidit.
Intelligent Design: Goddiditandranaway.
IDiotic creationuts
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127 338201.763730.154090%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Juttravartid theology: The Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed, and there
was the universe.
Everybody that knows anything knows totally-blind-at-every-level
processes did it-- it's common knowledge.
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
You forgot 'evidence.' Observed Dawkins in 1982,
"Darwin's theory [of natural sel ection] is now supported by all the
available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any
serious modern biologist."
So where did he say "because it is not doubted then it
must be right"?
I hope you have enough respect for your parents
that "ford" is a pseudonym.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 07:35:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "NashtOn" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 07:40:00 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
Nicolas
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 07:50:05 PM |
|
|
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:Ax0_e.97235$Ph4.3058861@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
And that data supports evolutionary theory. What's your problem?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "NashtOn" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 04:56:47 AM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:Ax0_e.97235$Ph4.3058861@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
And that data supports evolutionary theory. What's your problem?
DJT
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
Evolution is a scam. It serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote the
secularist and naturalist philosophy/agenda of atheist kooks.
Nicola
.
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 08:13:53 AM |
|
|
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:zH8_e.97329$Ph4.3063433@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:Ax0_e.97235$Ph4.3058861@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
And that data supports evolutionary theory. What's your problem?
DJT
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
There is enough data and this group presents it to the ignorant or
uneducated. Also, groups like this came into existance because creationists
are attempting to soil science with teir religious believs, not "alternate
scientific" thories.
Evolution is a scam. It serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote the
secularist and naturalist philosophy/agenda of atheist kooks.
Creationism is a scam. it serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote a
specific religious doctrine of religious fanatics and uneducated twits.
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 08:06:55 AM |
|
|
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:zH8_e.97329$Ph4.3063433@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
snipping
And that data supports evolutionary theory. What's your problem?
DJT
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
Of course. The *purpose* of this newsgroup is to deflect evolution deniers
from genuine scientific newsgroups. Those who object to evolution do so
out of prior commmitment to a religious belief, not on any scientific
principle.
What part of the data do you dispute? Let's have some specifics here.
Evolution is a scam. It serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote the
secularist and naturalist philosophy/agenda of atheist kooks.
Arguement by assertion. I'm not an atheist, and all science operates on
secular and naturalistic premises. Why should we single out evolution for
criticism for using the same process as all other sciences?
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 05:10:34 AM |
|
|
NashtOn wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:Ax0_e.97235$Ph4.3058861@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
And that data supports evolutionary theory. What's your problem?
DJT
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
Evolution is a scam. It serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote the
secularist and naturalist philosophy/agenda of atheist kooks.
Then maybe you can explain how it is that the majority of the world's
Christians successfully reconcile their faith with evolution? Why are
you incapable of doing the same?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 09:19:52 AM |
|
|
NashtOn wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:Ax0_e.97235$Ph4.3058861@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
And that data supports evolutionary theory. What's your problem?
DJT
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
This is not a scientific newsgroup. If you really want large bodies of
data, sci.bio.evolution are glad to address SINCERE requests -- But
you're not allowed to discuss Creationism in real scientific newsgroups
or they'll just refer you back here.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 01:25:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:56:47 GMT,
NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:Ax0_e.97235$Ph4.3058861@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
And that data supports evolutionary theory. What's your problem?
DJT
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
This group's purpose is to keep the likes of you from fouling up newsgroups
where actual discussion on aspects of science take place.
Evolution is a scam. It serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote the
secularist and naturalist philosophy/agenda of atheist kooks.
You're welcome to your deluded opinion. Just keep it away from my kids. I
don't want them exposed to stupidity at an age where they might be
vulnerable to it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 06:13:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:56:47 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
?? if the evidence on quantum physics was clear would there still be
scientists working on it?
the reason scientists are educating the american public is because
there are religious zealots trying to destroy science
you're begging the question.
Evolution is a scam. It serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote the
secularist and naturalist philosophy/agenda of atheist kooks.
and nicoli asserts that all xtians who accept evolution are atheists.
notice how creationists hate not only scientists, but other xtians?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 07:22:24 AM |
|
|
"On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:13:58 GMT, in article
<43392917.42403168@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Bob stated..."
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:56:47 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
?? if the evidence on quantum physics was clear would there still be
scientists working on it?
the reason scientists are educating the american public is because
there are religious zealots trying to destroy science
you're begging the question.
It's just the latest version in making creationism as content-
free as possible.
In this case, it's an attempt to make evidence for evolution
into evidence against evolution. Not, of course, evidence *for*
creationism, design, or anything else. If you respond to a
creationist, then you are showing that there is a "controversy".
(Of course, if you don't respond, then you have a closed mind.)
Evolution is a scam. It serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote the
secularist and naturalist philosophy/agenda of atheist kooks.
and nicoli asserts that all xtians who accept evolution are atheists.
notice how creationists hate not only scientists, but other xtians?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"The utmost, therefore that the argument [derived from the analogy with human
art] can prove is an _architect of the world, who is always very much hampered
by the adaptabilities of the material in which he works, not a _creator of the
world to whose idea everything is subject." Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A627
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 04:30:07 PM |
|
|
in article zH8_e.97329$Ph4.3063433@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca, NashtOn at
nana@na.ca wrote on 9/27/05 5:56 AM:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"NashtOn" <nana@na.ca> wrote in message
news:Ax0_e.97235$Ph4.3058861@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
And that data supports evolutionary theory. What's your problem?
DJT
LOL. If the data was so clear and abundant, do you think there would be
groups like this with evolutionists trying to convince creationists and
non-evolutionists in general (but mostly themselves) that there is, in
fact enough data?
Tell you what, let's put it another way, shall we? If the evidence for
Christ as Savior and the Bible as absolute Truth was so clear and abundant,
do you think there would be anyone who would be needed to be convinced to be
saved, or that anyone would deliberately choose an eternity of hell fire
rather than believe the obvious?
Evolution is a scam. It serves no purpose whatsoever but to promote the
secularist and naturalist philosophy/agenda of atheist kooks.
And your version of Christianity may well be a scam with no purpose.
Don't get mad! I have done no more than use your own line of reasoning
against you.
The fact is that evidence can be clear, real, and convincing, but people
choose not to believe it for a variety of reasons.
And you have your own reasons for not believing evolution. The evidence has
nothing to do with it. Your reason for not believing is entirely religious,
and has nothing to do with reality or with reason, either for that matter.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Nicola
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 08:12:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:00 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:18:57 GMT, NashtOn <nana@na.ca> wrote:
Another darwinist, brainwashed to the Limbic system that thinks that a
scientific theory must be right because of popularity.
of course, creatinists routinely tell us that creationism should be
taught in public schools because the american people are in favor of
it.
Non sequitur.
hardly. to creationists, science is a matter of democracy when the
people want it in schools.
Science, contrary to politics, is an oligarchy of data.
then why are creationists trying to get ID in schools when there is
not a single paper published supporting it anywhere in the world?
hoist by your own petard?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 08:53:38 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
then why are creationists trying to get ID in schools when there is
not a single paper published supporting it anywhere in the world?
I recently found out it was created shortly after the supreme court said
creationism was un constitutional by the people who were trying to get
creation taught.
A bit dishonest...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 06:14:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:53:38 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
then why are creationists trying to get ID in schools when there is
not a single paper published supporting it anywhere in the world?
I recently found out it was created shortly after the supreme court said
creationism was un constitutional by the people who were trying to get
creation taught.
tis true. i've long contended that if creationism was in the public
schools, no one would know who mike behe is, his existence being
unnecessary.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 12:37:48 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:53:38 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
then why are creationists trying to get ID in schools when there is
not a single paper published supporting it anywhere in the world?
I recently found out it was created shortly after the supreme court said
creationism was un constitutional by the people who were trying to get
creation taught.
tis true. i've long contended that if creationism was in the public
schools, no one would know who mike behe is, his existence being
unnecessary.
Surely they would; He's plays the hero in Terminator, right?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kleuskes & Moos" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 01:21:22 PM |
|
|
Iain schreef:
How does evolution NOT happen?
How can complex life NOT evolve from simple cells that do NOT replicate
perfectly, thereby forcing change? How can the change be anything other
than functional and complex?
How does complexity NOT pile on? How can natural selection create a
trend that is anything other than functional?
Does natural selection phase in the bad developments and phase out the
good ones? No.
To suggest otherwise is like suggesting that water once ran uphill.
~Iain
:). I like to think there should be some way to find some mathematical
proof, along the lines of Boltzmann and hist Constants. It should be
possible, I like to think, to furbish ToE with the same mathematical
underpinnings as thermodynamics.
Unfortunately, I have sufficient knowledge of my mathematical skills
not to try, myself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 03:22:45 PM |
|
|
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
:). I like to think there should be some way to find some mathematical
proof, along the lines of Boltzmann and hist Constants. It should be
possible, I like to think, to furbish ToE with the same mathematical
underpinnings as thermodynamics.
Unfortunately, I have sufficient knowledge of my mathematical skills
not to try, myself.
I'm reminded of
Gould on the major synthesists
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990131235540.126906A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Martinez" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
26 Sep 2005 10:10:09 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
How does evolution NOT happen?
The incontrovertible fossil record (which can accurately be likened to
the ultimate time lapse photographic event) says by observation that
species suddenly appear, change slightly over time, then disappear.
IOW, microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution, that is the connection
between species is not seen because living things do not morph into
another living thing. If they did the record would show it.
Macroevolution is driven by the need for Genesis to be wrong, IOW
atheistic worldviews and the Master conspirator behind them: Satan.
How can complex life NOT evolve from simple cells that do NOT replicate
perfectly, thereby forcing change? How can the change be anything other
than functional and complex?
False assumption that cells are simple. Science has long proven cells
are extremely complex and contain massive amounts of information all of
which point to a brilliant Designer.
How does complexity NOT pile on? How can natural selection create a
trend that is anything other than functional?
Does natural selection phase in the bad developments and phase out the
good ones? No.
To suggest otherwise is like suggesting that water once ran uphill.
~Iain
You lost me here, seems like your point supports creationism.
Ray Martinez
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 08:23:18 AM |
|
|
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127790609.118951.284720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Iain wrote:
How does evolution NOT happen?
The incontrovertible fossil record (which can accurately be likened to
the ultimate time lapse photographic event) says by observation that
species suddenly appear, change slightly over time, then disappear.
Which is what we'd expect from a "time lapse" sequence. We see individual
sections of the evolutionary sequence, it takes looking at the whole "movie"
to see the evolutionary trend. Each "change slightly" leads to the next
generation which also has slight changes. Over the sequence, those slight
changes add up.
IOW, microevolution is a fact.
And macroevolution is largely a repetition of that fact.
Macroevolution, that is the connection
between species is not seen because living things do not morph into
another living thing.
Correct. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. We see the "morph" in
the sequence, not in the individuals.
If they did the record would show it.
That's why we see the change over time, and over populations, not in
individuals.
Macroevolution is driven by the need for Genesis to be wrong, IOW
atheistic worldviews and the Master conspirator behind them: Satan.
Ray, you just pointed out above how macroevolution is demonstrated in the
fossil record. Genesis was already shown to be scientifically inaccurate
by the time the concept of evolution was proposed. Also, even Creationists
must admit that large scale changes in populations over time have occured,
in order for their "Noah's Ark" claims to be even slightly plausible.
How can complex life NOT evolve from simple cells that do NOT replicate
perfectly, thereby forcing change? How can the change be anything other
than functional and complex?
False assumption that cells are simple. Science has long proven cells
are extremely complex and contain massive amounts of information all of
which point to a brilliant Designer.
Modern cells are rather complex, as one could expect after billions of years
of evolution. However why do you assume the first cells are as complex as
ones today? Also, can you please give a metric for "information"? In
any case, complex systems are not evidence of a designer, just that
complexity occurs.
How does complexity NOT pile on? How can natural selection create a
trend that is anything other than functional?
Does natural selection phase in the bad developments and phase out the
good ones? No.
To suggest otherwise is like suggesting that water once ran uphill.
~Iain
You lost me here, seems like your point supports creationism.
Ray, anything "supports creationism" to someone who can admit to no
alternatives.
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 05:47:00 AM |
|
|
If evolution doesn't work how is it possible to breed various Roses to
get new ones?
.
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 08:21:08 AM |
|
|
<edward12@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1127818020.785948.290910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If evolution doesn't work how is it possible to breed various Roses to
get new ones?
Als, if evolution doesn't work, how do you explain (and present the data):
Emergance of antibacterial resistance in bacteria..
Temporal species sucession in the fossil record..
Biogeographical distribution of species....
Variations in isolated populations of related species..
Multiple nested hiearchy of species..
I'm sure you have all sorts of testable answers for the above.
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 06:16:37 AM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2005 20:10:09 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Iain wrote:
How does evolution NOT happen?
The incontrovertible fossil record (which can accurately be likened to
the ultimate time lapse photographic event) says by observation that
species suddenly appear, change slightly over time, then disappear.
IOW, microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution, that is the connection
between species is not seen because living things do not morph into
another living thing. If they did the record would show it.
it does. the evolution of the horse and whale are fairly complete in
the fossil record. it's amazing how much of your argument rests on
denying facts.
Macroevolution is driven by the need for Genesis to be wrong
how do you know this? since most evolutionists believe in god you are
stating that only YOU know who is an xtian.
arrogance.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to Creationists |
27 Sep 2005 01:38:30 PM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2005 20:10:09 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Iain wrote:
How does evolution NOT happen?
The incontrovertible fossil record (which can accurately be likened to
the ultimate time lapse photographic event) says by observation that
species suddenly appear, change slightly over time, then disappear.
IOW, microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution, that is the connection
between species is not seen because living things do not morph into
another living thing. If they did the record would show it.
Macroevolution is driven by the need for Genesis to be wrong, IOW
atheistic worldviews and the Master conspirator behind them: Satan.
I hate to break this to you, Ray, but *you yourself* just said Genesis
is wrong. As you note, new species appear throughout the fossil
record (the *incontrovertible* fossil record), not just all at one
time. And these are *widely* different forms which appear at *widely*
different times. Genesis says all species appeared effectively all at
once. Genesis, according to Ray Martinez, is wrong.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
