| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Jones" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2008 05:41:31 PM |
| Object: |
Creationism! |
Religious creationism and Science are, of course, both creationisms. As
such they both suffer from the the same, fatal, error:
Science has no explanation for the appearance of created objects
(design) in the world. 'Random selection' is sometimes offered as
explanation, but this is both an oxymoron, a tautologous explanation
(selection=design), and irrelevant to the problem of how design
announces itself. Religious creationism fares no better, saying that
design is held in the eye of God, thence delivered into the world as
created objects.
But both science and religion cannot say how we find design in the
world, that is, how we can recognise designed objects - objects that
define their own limits and purposes.
.
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
04 Feb 2008 01:44:36 PM |
|
|
In article <fo5jf1$vhm$1@aioe.org>, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:
... but this is both an oxymoron, a tautologous explanation
(selection=design), and irrelevant to the problem ...
It's both an oxymoron *and* a tautology. Even worse, it's *both*
an oxymoron *and* a tautology *and* irrelevant to the problem.
The words are English words and the syntax is like English syntax,
but I don't think the language you're speaking is actually English.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
03 Feb 2008 06:34:44 PM |
|
|
John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in news:fo5jf1$vhm$1@aioe.org to
alt.atheism on 03 Feb 2008:
Rel
http://www.neath-porttalbot.gov.uk/socialservices/contact.cfm
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
03 Feb 2008 11:46:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 01:34:44 +0100 (CET), "Sanity's Little Helper"
<elvish@noshpam.org> wrote:
John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in news:fo5jf1$vhm$1@aioe.org to
alt.atheism on 03 Feb 2008:
Rel
http://www.neath-porttalbot.gov.uk/socialservices/contact.cfm
Lol!
Excellent.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
03 Feb 2008 09:17:13 PM |
|
|
John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in news:fo5jf1$vhm$1@aioe.org:
Religious creationism and Science are, of course, both creationisms.
yawwnn
As
such they both suffer from the the same, fatal, error:
Science has no explanation for the appearance of created objects
(design) in the world.
And you have no justification for the claim that the features of the world
and it's contents exhibit design.
'Random selection' is sometimes offered as
explanation, but this is both an oxymoron, a tautologous explanation
(selection=design), and irrelevant to the problem of how design
announces itself.
LOL !! Still having problems with numbers and counting, I see.
But both science and religion cannot say how we find design in the
world, that is, how we can recognise designed objects - objects that
define their own limits and purposes.
yawwnn
The "limits and purposes" of designed objects are generally set by the
designer.
Regards,
Josef
They talk most who have the least to say.
-- Mathew Prior
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
03 Feb 2008 09:57:50 PM |
|
|
Morontheist John Jones:
Science has no explanation for the appearance of created objects
(design) in the world.
Another morontheist lies for its monster gawd.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
03 Feb 2008 09:04:00 PM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 3:41=A0pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Religious creationism and Science are, of course, both creationisms. As
such they both suffer from the the same, fatal, error:
Science has no explanation for the appearance of created objects
(design) in the world. 'Random selection' is sometimes offered as
explanation, but this is both an oxymoron, a tautologous explanation
(selection=3Ddesign), and irrelevant to the problem of how design
announces itself. Religious creationism fares no better, saying that
design is held in the eye of God, thence delivered into the world as
created objects.
But both science and religion cannot say how we find design in the
world, that is, how we can recognise designed objects - objects that
define their own limits and purposes.
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. How do I know,
when you typed your message you used intelligence. There is no
exception to that.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
04 Feb 2008 02:54:45 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:08ba8e72-5ab7-4db5-a301-24285b13af69
@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com to alt.atheism on 04 Feb 2008:
On Feb 3, 3:41 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Rel
when you typed your message you used intelligence.
You would think that, wouldn't you?
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SkyEyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
04 Feb 2008 12:09:41 PM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 8:04=A0pm, wrote:
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. =A0How do I know,
when you typed your message you used intelligence. =A0There is no
exception to that.
Actually, McNameless, science tells us no such thing. Science
actually "tells us" - i.e., supports with evidence - that blind
repetitive processes that are able to "fix" improvements can result in
something highly complex.
I suggest Daniel C. Dennett's book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, which
explains exactly how this process works in exhaustive detail. Not
that I expect *you* to read anything outside your fundy comfort zone,
but there may be a lurker or two out there who actually has sufficient
intelligence and integrity to do his homework.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
04 Feb 2008 11:42:06 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 10:09=A0am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:04=A0pm, wrote:
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. =A0How do I know,
when you typed your message you used intelligence. =A0There is no
exception to that.
Actually, McNameless, science tells us no such thing. =A0Science
actually "tells us" - i.e., supports with evidence - that blind
repetitive processes that are able to "fix" improvements can result in
something highly complex.
I suggest Daniel C. Dennett's book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, which
explains exactly how this process works in exhaustive detail. =A0Not
that I expect *you* to read anything outside your fundy comfort zone,
but there may be a lurker or two out there who actually has sufficient
intelligence and integrity to do his homework.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
I have read a lot of evolutionists junk.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
05 Feb 2008 08:37:27 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
JM20000000@hotmail.com wrote:
| On Feb 4, 10:09 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
|> On Feb 3, 8:04 pm, wrote:
|>
|>> Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. How do I know,
|>> when you typed your message you used intelligence. There is no
|>> exception to that.
|> Actually, McNameless, science tells us no such thing. Science
|> actually "tells us" - i.e., supports with evidence - that blind
|> repetitive processes that are able to "fix" improvements can result in
|> something highly complex.
|>
|> I suggest Daniel C. Dennett's book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, which
|> explains exactly how this process works in exhaustive detail. Not
|> that I expect *you* to read anything outside your fundy comfort zone,
|> but there may be a lurker or two out there who actually has sufficient
|> intelligence and integrity to do his homework.
|>
|> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
|> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
|> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
|
| I have read a lot of evolutionists junk.
|
And I have read a lot of YOUR junk. You are not qualified to pass
judgment on what is and is not junk in the fields of science. In order
to be qualified to pass judgment, you have to have an understanding of
what you are passing judgment on.
You clearly understand nothing with regards to science and you continual
lying here shows that your credibility in making such judgments is of a
negative value.
IOW's McDickHead, quite talking out of your *****.
Video, Piltdown ISBN's, TO evidence.
You still have not provided any support to your assertions McNeedleDick.
And you apparently plan to never do so either.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFHqHShf+wl0F6+jvgRAoYrAJ4oRmS/988yPCGJYI7OstDvKb2DjgCXWYG3
u77iwbTDIaJYkXiHccsR9A==
=XWwJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
05 Feb 2008 11:02:31 AM |
|
|
In article <0196a40f-bc4d-4171-ad62-3b8f938ea226@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> writes:
On Feb 4, 10:09=A0am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:04=A0pm, wrote:
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. =A0How do I know,
when you typed your message you used intelligence. =A0There is no
exception to that.
Actually, McNameless, science tells us no such thing. =A0Science
actually "tells us" - i.e., supports with evidence - that blind
repetitive processes that are able to "fix" improvements can result in
something highly complex.
I suggest Daniel C. Dennett's book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, which
explains exactly how this process works in exhaustive detail. =A0Not
that I expect *you* to read anything outside your fundy comfort zone,
but there may be a lurker or two out there who actually has sufficient
intelligence and integrity to do his homework.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
I have read a lot of evolutionists junk.
Really? So have I. Why don't you list a few
books, and if I've read the same ones, we
could discuss them.
Here ya go:
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creationism! |
05 Feb 2008 03:53:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:42:06 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:09 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:04 pm, wrote:
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. How do I know,
when you typed your message you used intelligence. There is no
exception to that.
Actually, McNameless, science tells us no such thing. Science
actually "tells us" - i.e., supports with evidence - that blind
repetitive processes that are able to "fix" improvements can result in
something highly complex.
I suggest Daniel C. Dennett's book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, which
explains exactly how this process works in exhaustive detail. Not
that I expect *you* to read anything outside your fundy comfort zone,
but there may be a lurker or two out there who actually has sufficient
intelligence and integrity to do his homework.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
I have read a lot of evolutionists junk.
And totally failed to understand it.
JM
McClueless Video Challenge - Day 26 and still counting.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19 and still 1,997,000 school textbooks
to account for.
Censorship by talk.origins and/or Google - several months after your
first claims and still not one shred of evidence.
Get to it McMoron.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creationism! |
05 Feb 2008 05:07:09 AM |
|
|
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:qecgq3l01fqumsu1uquh379tddc6psc7gv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:42:06 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:09 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:04 pm, wrote:
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. How do I know,
when you typed your message you used intelligence. There is no
exception to that.
Actually, McNameless, science tells us no such thing. Science
actually "tells us" - i.e., supports with evidence - that blind
repetitive processes that are able to "fix" improvements can result in
something highly complex.
I suggest Daniel C. Dennett's book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, which
explains exactly how this process works in exhaustive detail. Not
that I expect *you* to read anything outside your fundy comfort zone,
but there may be a lurker or two out there who actually has sufficient
intelligence and integrity to do his homework.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
I have read a lot of evolutionists junk.
And totally failed to understand it.
JM
<snork!> That's because you refuse to read
anything on your own that was written after
1950. You are in bad need of a decent
education. Were you homeschooled, nameless?
McClueless Video Challenge - Day 26 and still counting.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19 and still 1,997,000 school textbooks
to account for.
Censorship by talk.origins and/or Google - several months after your
first claims and still not one shred of evidence.
Get to it McMoron.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
05 Feb 2008 01:54:28 PM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 3:07=A0am, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qecgq3l01fqumsu1uquh3=
79tddc6psc7gv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:42:06 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:09 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:04 pm, wrote:
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. How do I know,=
when you typed your message you used intelligence. There is no
exception to that.
Actually, McNameless, science tells us no such thing. Science
actually "tells us" - i.e., supports with evidence - that blind
repetitive processes that are able to "fix" improvements can result in=
something highly complex.
I suggest Daniel C. Dennett's book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, which
explains exactly how this process works in exhaustive detail. Not
that I expect *you* to read anything outside your fundy comfort zone,
but there may be a lurker or two out there who actually has sufficient=
intelligence and integrity to do his homework.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
I have read a lot of evolutionists junk.
And totally failed to understand it.
JM
<snork!> That's because you refuse to read
anything on your own that was written after
1950. You are in bad need of a decent
education. Were you homeschooled, nameless?
public school, college.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creationism! |
05 Feb 2008 03:01:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:54:28 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Feb 5, 3:07 am, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qecgq3l01fqumsu1uquh379tddc6psc7gv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:42:06 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:09 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:04 pm, wrote:
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. How do I know,
when you typed your message you used intelligence. There is no
exception to that.
Actually, McNameless, science tells us no such thing. Science
actually "tells us" - i.e., supports with evidence - that blind
repetitive processes that are able to "fix" improvements can result in
something highly complex.
I suggest Daniel C. Dennett's book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, which
explains exactly how this process works in exhaustive detail. Not
that I expect *you* to read anything outside your fundy comfort zone,
but there may be a lurker or two out there who actually has sufficient
intelligence and integrity to do his homework.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
I have read a lot of evolutionists junk.
And totally failed to understand it.
JM
<snork!> That's because you refuse to read
anything on your own that was written after
1950. You are in bad need of a decent
education. Were you homeschooled, nameless?
public school, college.
JM
McClueless Video Challenge - Day 26 and still counting.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19 and still 1,997,000 school textbooks
to account for.
Censorship by talk.origins and/or Google - several months after your
first claims and still not one shred of evidence.
We are ALL waiting for you McClueless. These matters are NOT going to
go away.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
04 Feb 2008 11:40:20 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:04:00 -0800 in
08ba8e72-5ab7-4db5-a301-24285b13af69@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
JM20000000@hotmail.com wrote:
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence.
Leaves you out huh?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
- Dr. House
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creationism! |
04 Feb 2008 01:15:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:04:00 -0800 (PST),
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:41 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Religious creationism and Science are, of course, both creationisms. As
such they both suffer from the the same, fatal, error:
Science has no explanation for the appearance of created objects
(design) in the world. 'Random selection' is sometimes offered as
explanation, but this is both an oxymoron, a tautologous explanation
(selection=design), and irrelevant to the problem of how design
announces itself. Religious creationism fares no better, saying that
design is held in the eye of God, thence delivered into the world as
created objects.
But both science and religion cannot say how we find design in the
world, that is, how we can recognise designed objects - objects that
define their own limits and purposes.
Science tells us that design comes from intelligence. How do I know,
when you typed your message you used intelligence. There is no
exception to that.
JM
We know that you never use intelligence when you post McClueless. If
you did there would not be the three important outstanding questions
you need to deal with.
McClueless Video Challenge - Day 25 and still counting.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 19 and still 1,997,000 school textbooks
to account for.
Censorship by talk.origins and/or Google - several months after your
first claims and still not one shred of evidence.
Get to it McMoron, every day you avoid the problem you look more and
more dishonest.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
04 Feb 2008 12:02:10 PM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 6:41=A0pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Religious creationism and Science are, of course, both creationisms.
Premise:
As
such they both suffer from the the same, fatal, error:
Premise defined
Science has no explanation for the appearance of created objects
(design) in the world.
ERRRNNNTT: Begging the question(assumes design)
'Random selection' is sometimes offered as
explanation, but this is both an oxymoron, a tautologous explanation
(selection=3Ddesign), and irrelevant to the problem of how design
announces itself.
ERRRNNNTT: Begging the question(assumes design)
Religious creationism fares no better, saying that
design is held in the eye of God, thence delivered into the world as
created objects.
But both science and religion cannot say how we find design in the
world, that is, how we can recognise designed objects - objects that
define their own limits and purposes.
You assume design. You did so multiple times. Your argument fails.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
04 Feb 2008 11:39:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:41:31 +0000 in fo5jf1$vhm$1@aioe.org, John Jones
<jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:
Religious creationism and Science are, of course, both
creationisms.<SNIP>
I didn't even know Guinness *had* a "stupid" category to contend for...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Focus on Your Own Damn Family
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism! |
03 Feb 2008 07:27:56 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> bloodied us
up with this:
Religious creationism and Science are, of course, both creationisms. As
such they both suffer from the the same, fatal, error:
Science has no explanation for the appearance of created objects
(design) in the world. 'Random selection' is sometimes offered as
explanation, but this is both an oxymoron, a tautologous explanation
(selection=design), and irrelevant to the problem of how design
announces itself. Religious creationism fares no better, saying that
design is held in the eye of God, thence delivered into the world as
created objects.
But both science and religion cannot say how we find design in the
world, that is, how we can recognise designed objects - objects that
define their own limits and purposes.
Uh, what?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
