Creationism Ratted Out - Again

Religions > Atheism > Creationism Ratted Out - Again

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Budikka666"
Date:	20 Jan 2005 05:37:17 PM
Object:	Creationism Ratted Out - Again

Given tats are already helping us diagnose TB:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3486559.stm
It comes as no surprise to find out that they're wired for speech:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/09/speech.rats.reut/index.html
A year or so ago the rat genome was read and it turned out
unsurprisingly to be just like mice. It also turned out to be just
like humans - a fact that surprised no one but the creationists, who
were desperately hoping for something to bolster their absurd
"immutable kinds" lie.
It was only two years prior to the rat genome giving up its secrets
that the mouse genome had been read. That genome demonstrated that
mice have 80% of our DNA (or we theirs) with each species having only
some 300 genes that the other didn't have.
That means that since the mouse and ourselves split from our common
ancestor, we each have diversified only 300 genes. Maybe these are new
genes or maybe we lost some that the mouse didn't and vice versa. But
the one thing that has the creationists on their backs with their legs
in the air like dead bugs on a window ledge is that such
diversification is completely plausible.
Let's make it tough on evolution and say that our common ancestor had a
basic set of genes and in order for it to become a mouse or a human, it
had to "grow" 300 new genes. Is that a tall order? No - not for
evolution!
We know there were critters not dissimilar to mice running around in
the finale to the dinosaur era. So let's set a starting point 60
million years ago and say this is where we and mice took off. We each
had to grow 300 new genes in 60 million years.
Creationists like to say that a gene has, on average, 100,000 base
pairs, so let's use that number. 100,000 base pairs times 300 genes
means we had to grow 30 million new base pairs in 60 million years.
That's one new base pair every two years! How hard is that?
Especially given the breeding rate of mice and other small mammals!
What mechanism prevents it? **N-O-T-H-I-N-G**!! The creationists can
offer not one single argument against it! And this is the worst
possible case they can throw at evolution - the worse case and they
cannot argue a single thing against it! That's how pathetic their
position is.
Of course, evolution doesn't work in this simple, straight-forward
mathematical mode, but then neither do you need to grow every new gene
from scratch, given the wealth of pseudogenes and junk DNA the genome
has for mutation to play with, so it evens out. This is just a
demonstration of a concept, simplified so that even creationists can
grasp it. It takes the worst case scenario and the creationists lose.
No surprises there.
Budikka
.

User: "000o\|o000 P@P"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	20 Jan 2005 07:29:09 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1106264237.282849.219180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
But

the one thing that has the creationists on their backs with their legs
in the air like dead bugs on a window ledge is .....

======================
ROFLMAO!!! :-D Dead bugs, legs in the air... LOL!!! Descriptive and
fitting.
--
Katzio.....
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
The best defense to logic is ignorance
.

User: "Randy Story"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	20 Jan 2005 06:10:43 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1106264237.282849.219180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Given tats are already helping us diagnose TB:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3486559.stm
It comes as no surprise to find out that they're wired for speech:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/09/speech.rats.reut/index.html

A year or so ago the rat genome was read and it turned out
unsurprisingly to be just like mice. It also turned out to be just
like humans - a fact that surprised no one but the creationists, who
were desperately hoping for something to bolster their absurd
"immutable kinds" lie.

It was only two years prior to the rat genome giving up its secrets
that the mouse genome had been read. That genome demonstrated that
mice have 80% of our DNA (or we theirs) with each species having only
some 300 genes that the other didn't have.

That means that since the mouse and ourselves split from our common
ancestor, we each have diversified only 300 genes. Maybe these are new
genes or maybe we lost some that the mouse didn't and vice versa. But
the one thing that has the creationists on their backs with their legs
in the air like dead bugs on a window ledge is that such
diversification is completely plausible.

Let's make it tough on evolution and say that our common ancestor had a
basic set of genes and in order for it to become a mouse or a human, it
had to "grow" 300 new genes. Is that a tall order? No - not for
evolution!

We know there were critters not dissimilar to mice running around in
the finale to the dinosaur era. So let's set a starting point 60
million years ago and say this is where we and mice took off. We each
had to grow 300 new genes in 60 million years.

Creationists like to say that a gene has, on average, 100,000 base
pairs, so let's use that number. 100,000 base pairs times 300 genes
means we had to grow 30 million new base pairs in 60 million years.
That's one new base pair every two years! How hard is that?
Especially given the breeding rate of mice and other small mammals!

What mechanism prevents it? **N-O-T-H-I-N-G**!! The creationists can
offer not one single argument against it! And this is the worst
possible case they can throw at evolution - the worse case and they
cannot argue a single thing against it! That's how pathetic their
position is.

Of course, evolution doesn't work in this simple, straight-forward
mathematical mode, but then neither do you need to grow every new gene
from scratch, given the wealth of pseudogenes and junk DNA the genome
has for mutation to play with, so it evens out. This is just a
demonstration of a concept, simplified so that even creationists can
grasp it. It takes the worst case scenario and the creationists lose.
No surprises there.

Budikka

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent designer
to use similar
genetic paths to produce all creatures. It is the differences alone that
make the difference. We are humans because of these differences. How many
times must you be told.
Man, a frying pan has many similarities to a pot but its differences are
what determine its different use. They can find as many similarities as they
want to, the fact is it is impossible for biological life to come to be
without a program which is what the dna code is. The code is one for human
and one for apes. Energy & matter never produce life, life requires code.
By the way, programs, code, language, etc *only* come from intelligent
beings.
.

User: "Raptor514"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	21 Jan 2005 12:39:42 AM

<snip>

they

want to, the fact is it is impossible for biological life to come to be
without a program which is what the dna code is. The code is one for human
and one for apes. Energy & matter never produce life, life requires code.

By the way, programs, code, language, etc *only* come from intelligent
beings.

You can download a program from this link http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/
that routinely codes new solutions to problems using evolutionary
principles--all by itself. Feel free to give it a try.
Raptor514
.

User: "Brian E. Clark"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	22 Jan 2005 06:13:07 PM

In article <10v0i784dqm5490@corp.supernews.com>, Randy Story
said...

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.
You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.

User: "le ténébreux"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	22 Jan 2005 09:22:48 PM

Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.

You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

First of all, apologies for my ignorance about biology, this
is just an idea... Instead of a chef, would the creation concept
make more sense if we compare our hypothetical designer to a
computer programmer?
I'm a computer programmer myself, and when I start on a new
project I don't start completely from scratch - I build the
program using various classes that I have designed beforehand.
These classes in turn have been designed for flexibility so
they can handle whatever situation they might end up in.
Now let's say I design two programs with completely different
functionality, but using the same code libraries to build
their user interfaces, make calculations, manage memory, etc.
Not only will large chunks of identical code (or very similar,
depending on the compiler) appear in both programs, but some
of that code will contain instructions that aren't useful or
relevant for that particular program - sections of switch()
statements that handle parameters which the program never
actually passes, for example.
Any thoughts on this? If we compare DNA code to instructions
in a computer program, and imagine for a second that life was
intelligently designed by an OOP programmer who has taken
polymorphism to a whole new level, could the results look
anything like what we see today?
.

User: "Raymond Griffith"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	22 Jan 2005 11:37:30 PM

in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:

Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.

You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

First of all, apologies for my ignorance about biology,

Well, ignorance is curable -- if you have a desire to cure it and are
willing to do the study required to do so.
It won't happen overnight.

this
is just an idea...

Glad you admit it.

Instead of a chef, would the creation concept
make more sense if we compare our hypothetical designer to a
computer programmer?

A modern anthropomorphism?

I'm a computer programmer myself,

Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!

and when I start on a new
project I don't start completely from scratch - I build the
program using various classes that I have designed beforehand.
These classes in turn have been designed for flexibility so
they can handle whatever situation they might end up in.

That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.
God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature take
its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no flaws.
This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than perfect
program.
For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since God
is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for the
way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my relative?
A lot of genetic diseases -- call them "coding errors" are made by simple
transposition of amino acids. Others are more complicated.
But what is remarkable is that in the DNA code, a lot of the "code" doesn't
code for anything! What *is* evident in the noncoding regions is that there
are pieces which really really closely resemble coding pieces -- but not
quite. Almost as if a new piece that worked better was put in, the old
piece(s) disabled but not deleted.
Furthermore, a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing should be able to
design a system which wouldn't look like "natural selection" was at work.
Can you imagine it? DNA has provided for us an even stronger picture of the
nested hierarchy of life than anything else has. It points out how very
related we are to the rest of the animal kingdom.
Which is a point that Paul disagreed with vehemently. In 1 Corinthians 15 in
discussion of the resurrection, Paul makes it clear that the flesh of man is
not like the flesh of beasts, or of birds. Yet genetically it *is*. Man is
only about 3% to 5% different genetically from the chimpanzee.

Now let's say I design two programs with completely different
functionality, but using the same code libraries to build
their user interfaces, make calculations, manage memory, etc.
Not only will large chunks of identical code (or very similar,
depending on the compiler) appear in both programs, but some
of that code will contain instructions that aren't useful or
relevant for that particular program - sections of switch()
statements that handle parameters which the program never
actually passes, for example.

That is not optimal code. Now if you want to make God out to be a lazy
programmer, then maybe. But if you want to claim that He is a Perfect
Programmer, you can't do it.
Why put vestigial organs in animals if God is Perfect in all He does?
What you are doing, BTW, is looking at your own imperfections and
attributing them to God. You are indeed making God in your own image! If He
made man in His image, why do a sloppy job of it? Why should man, His
greatest work, be so plagued with genetic crap? Why is it that good people,
including little children, are made to suffer with this, while many old
sinners enjoy good health?
Describing God this way makes Him arbitrary, fallible, and quite possibly
malicious.

Any thoughts on this? If we compare DNA code to instructions
in a computer program, and imagine for a second that life was
intelligently designed by an OOP programmer who has taken
polymorphism to a whole new level, could the results look
anything like what we see today?

No. You see, today we are working to learn how to correct the deficient
coding. If God coded my relative to His specifications, then He was either
malicious or incompetent. And it was part of what drove another relative
away from God. Being born without a part of one's brain stem causes all
sorts of problems. The doctors today are able to pinpoint the genetic error
that causes such problems.
A genetic error causes spina biffida. Today, we test infants in utero for
the disease if we see a problem on the ultrasound. And now we have
techniques to perform surgery on the infant inside the womb to correct the
problem.
So, if God created the child deliberately to have spina biffida, are the
doctors defying God by correcting it?
I would say that your question has a lot of places where there is room for
some important thought.
I am a Christian. My relative's plight is an unanswered question in my
faith, as yet. Perhaps there will never be an answer. But seeing the
difficulty as a genetic error that "just happens" at times was a lot easier
that attributing that difficulty to God as a deliberate act. Yes, I have had
preachers explain that God does such things to get Himself glory, as in John
9. Yet this situation helped to deprive a loved one of her faith in God.
What glory was found in that?
The more creationism tries to rationalize God the more fallible they make
Him seem.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 02:36:53 PM

"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE18A24A.9EBB%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...

in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:

Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.

You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

First of all, apologies for my ignorance about biology,

Well, ignorance is curable -- if you have a desire to cure it and are
willing to do the study required to do so.

It won't happen overnight.

this
is just an idea...

Glad you admit it.

Instead of a chef, would the creation concept
make more sense if we compare our hypothetical designer to a
computer programmer?

A modern anthropomorphism?

I'm a computer programmer myself,

Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!

I think it's more accurate to say that - if God's purpose was to create
something perfect - then the material world would have been perfect.
But what if that was not God's purpose? What if His purpose was to create a
rough and ready world where death was built in to the design, and all
creatures have to subsist by eating the dead bodies of other creatures - and
this in order to accomodate the sinful desires of the beings for whom He
made the material world, beings who rebelled against Him and wanted to
forget Him and become lords themselves?
It seems that the "flaws" in the design of such a world are actually
relatively beneficial, since they prevent any of those sinful beings from
living forever, accumulating unlimited power, and tyrannizing others in
perpetuity.
<snip for brevity>
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 08:29:46 PM

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:36:53 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> said in
alt.atheism:

Get back to us when you have more than "what if?"
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 08:48:44 PM

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:onbbv0dge5i988snhtmgech5qquja0o7kb@4ax.com...

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:36:53 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> said in
alt.atheism:

I think it's more accurate to say that - if God's purpose was to create
something perfect - then the material world would have been perfect.

But what if that was not God's purpose? What if His purpose was to create
a
rough and ready world where death was built in to the design, and all
creatures have to subsist by eating the dead bodies of other creatures -
and
this in order to accomodate the sinful desires of the beings for whom He
made the material world, beings who rebelled against Him and wanted to
forget Him and become lords themselves?

Get back to us when you have more than "what if?"

Get back to us (a) when you get to junior high school and learn what a
"rhetorical question" is and (b) when you can provide objective evidence
that Gandhi existed.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 09:22:44 PM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:48:44 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> said in
alt.atheism:

Get back to us (a) when you get to junior high school and learn what a
"rhetorical question" is and (b) when you can provide objective evidence
that Gandhi existed.

I did.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	23 Jan 2005 02:16:44 PM

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:37:30 -0500, Raymond Griffith
<tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:

in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:

[]

I am a Christian. My relative's plight is an unanswered question in my
faith, as yet. Perhaps there will never be an answer. But seeing the
difficulty as a genetic error that "just happens" at times was a lot easier
that attributing that difficulty to God as a deliberate act. Yes, I have had
preachers explain that God does such things to get Himself glory, as in John
9. Yet this situation helped to deprive a loved one of her faith in God.
What glory was found in that?

The more creationism tries to rationalize God the more fallible they make
Him seem.

The Bible indicates premeditated malevolence and stupidity.
/cue primitive chariots on a level plain which couldn't be defeated
with tactics although 'God' knew the total game plan for both sides
eons before the 'event' took place. The only 'reason' for the failure
was the chariots were made of iron.
The incidents in the 'Garden of Eden' highlights such too, as does the
concept of Hell and its loving eternal torture as well as your cousin.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "Grendel"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 12:01:22 PM

Raymond Griffith wrote:

in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:

Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.

You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

First of all, apologies for my ignorance about biology,

Well, ignorance is curable -- if you have a desire to cure it and are
willing to do the study required to do so.

It won't happen overnight.

this
is just an idea...

Glad you admit it.

Instead of a chef, would the creation concept
make more sense if we compare our hypothetical designer to a
computer programmer?

A modern anthropomorphism?

I'm a computer programmer myself,

Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!

That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.

It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.

God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature take
its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no flaws.

Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.

This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than perfect
program.

For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since God
is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for the
way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my relative?

Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.
<snip rest of gross biblical mis-understanding>
.

User: "Raymond E. Griffith"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 12:58:31 PM

"Grendel" <jistnothin@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:SJaJd.147045$KO5.106885@clgrps13...

Raymond Griffith wrote:

in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:

Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.

You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

First of all, apologies for my ignorance about biology,

Well, ignorance is curable -- if you have a desire to cure it and are
willing to do the study required to do so.

It won't happen overnight.

this
is just an idea...

Glad you admit it.

Instead of a chef, would the creation concept
make more sense if we compare our hypothetical designer to a
computer programmer?

A modern anthropomorphism?

I'm a computer programmer myself,

Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!

That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.

It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.

God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature

take

its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no

flaws.

Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.

Read it. It does not say that it was "perfect". Find me a verse that says it
was "perfect". You can't.

The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.

What *did* those spiders eat before the fall, Jist? What did sharks eat?
What did whales eat? Why were wasps made with stingers?

This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than

perfect

program.

For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since

God

is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for

the

way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my

relative?

Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.

Which is to say, you have no answer either. Rail at the question, but don't
provide an answer -- that's you! And make assertions about what the Bible
says without quoting it -- that's you!
I note the "supposed Christian" remark. You are a nasty piece of work.

Noted that Jist has no answers, only insults.
Raymond E. Griffith
.

User: "Grendel"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 01:46:38 PM

Raymond E. Griffith wrote:

"Grendel" <jistnothin@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:SJaJd.147045$KO5.106885@clgrps13...

Raymond Griffith wrote:

in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:

Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.

You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

First of all, apologies for my ignorance about biology,

Well, ignorance is curable -- if you have a desire to cure it and are
willing to do the study required to do so.

It won't happen overnight.

this
is just an idea...

Glad you admit it.

Instead of a chef, would the creation concept
make more sense if we compare our hypothetical designer to a
computer programmer?

A modern anthropomorphism?

I'm a computer programmer myself,

Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!

That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.

It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.

God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature

take

its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no

flaws.

Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.

Read it. It does not say that it was "perfect". Find me a verse that says it
was "perfect". You can't.

Starting from God’s Word, everything was ‘very good’ at the end of Day 6.

The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.

What *did* those spiders eat before the fall, Jist? What did sharks eat?
What did whales eat? Why were wasps made with stingers?

Makes no difference what they ate or how they behaved. For you Raymond,
it is difficult mainly because you don’t understand (or don’t believe)
His revelation about these things.

This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than

perfect

program.

For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since

God

is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for

the

way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my

relative?

Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.

Which is to say, you have no answer either. Rail at the question, but don't
provide an answer -- that's you! And make assertions about what the Bible
says without quoting it -- that's you!

No Raymond, I follow the logical consistency of scripture and stick to
the readily available understanding that a plain straightforward reading
of the text gives. You do not. It's just that simple. The huge
illogical inconsistencies come in when you try and force scripture to
adhere to *your* ideas. In your case, you are trying to *force*
scripture to fit with your preconceived notions about evolution. Won't
work, can't work...as scripture and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.

I note the "supposed Christian" remark. You are a nasty piece of work.

Geeez Raymond. Why are you so easily offended? Incredible! You run
around here taking all kinds of pot shots and react like a little cry
baby when you read something you don't like.

Noted that Jist has no answers, only insults.

There there Raymond. There there.

Raymond E. Griffith

User: "Raymond E. Griffith"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 02:14:26 PM

"Grendel" <jistnothin@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:ygcJd.147064$KO5.112990@clgrps13...

Raymond E. Griffith wrote:

"Grendel" <jistnothin@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:SJaJd.147045$KO5.106885@clgrps13...

Raymond Griffith wrote:

in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:

Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.

You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

First of all, apologies for my ignorance about biology,

Well, ignorance is curable -- if you have a desire to cure it and are
willing to do the study required to do so.

It won't happen overnight.

this
is just an idea...

Glad you admit it.

Instead of a chef, would the creation concept
make more sense if we compare our hypothetical designer to a
computer programmer?

A modern anthropomorphism?

I'm a computer programmer myself,

Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of

ones

self!

That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.

It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.

God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature

take

its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no

flaws.

Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.

Read it. It does not say that it was "perfect". Find me a verse that

says it

was "perfect". You can't.

Starting from God’s Word, everything was ‘very good’ at the end of Day 6.

Hebrew has a perfectly adequate word for "perfect" -- and "very good" is not
it. "Very good" does not mean "perfect". Never has, never will.
Care to try again?
And let's see. Who was the original sinner? Adam, Eve, or the snake? By
Genesis 3, please.

The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.

What *did* those spiders eat before the fall, Jist? What did sharks eat?
What did whales eat? Why were wasps made with stingers?

Makes no difference what they ate or how they behaved. For you Raymond,
it is difficult mainly because you don’t understand (or don’t believe)
His revelation about these things.

It certainly does make a difference as to what they ate or how they behaved.
Read Job. God ascribes the predatory nature of many creatures to His own
power. If God claims credit for it ....
And as for His revelation -- you have yet to outline it sufficiently to
prove your point.
I believe the Scripture, Jist. But some things are not meant to be taken
literally. Jesus gave truth in parables, after all.
So to say that there was no death at all before the fall is to ignore what
God said in Job, and to make the Scripture say other things it did not.

This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact

that

there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than

perfect

program.

For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since

God

is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for

the

way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my

relative?

Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.

Which is to say, you have no answer either. Rail at the question, but

don't

provide an answer -- that's you! And make assertions about what the

Bible

says without quoting it -- that's you!

No Raymond, I follow the logical consistency of scripture and stick to
the readily available understanding that a plain straightforward reading
of the text gives. You do not.

Actually it is the other way around. You have great leaping gaps in what you
read literally.

It's just that simple. The huge
illogical inconsistencies come in when you try and force scripture to
adhere to *your* ideas.

Which is what I see *you* doing!

In your case, you are trying to *force*
scripture to fit with your preconceived notions about evolution.

And you force Scripture to fit with your preconceived notions against
evolution.

Won't
work, can't work...as scripture and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.

Nope.

I note the "supposed Christian" remark. You are a nasty piece of work.

Geeez Raymond. Why are you so easily offended? Incredible! You run
around here taking all kinds of pot shots and react like a little cry
baby when you read something you don't like.

Not taking pot shots. But I do note that you do not answer the questions,
either. But yes, I am offended if you question the fact that I am saved.
I am *not* offended by the fact that you think I interpret Scripture
incorrectly. I don't believe that I do, and from my perspective you are one
who does precisely what you claim others (as me) do. But I believe you are
honest about how you see Scripture (even if I do not believe you are honest
in how you portray evolution).
But I believe you are saved.

Noted that Jist has no answers, only insults.

There there Raymond. There there.

Well, then. Answer the questions.
Here is another one. Why the tsunami that claimed the lives of 225,000?
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith

Raymond E. Griffith

User: "Grendel"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 02:55:50 PM

Raymond E. Griffith wrote:

"Grendel" <jistnothin@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:ygcJd.147064$KO5.112990@clgrps13...

Raymond E. Griffith wrote:

"Grendel" <jistnothin@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:SJaJd.147045$KO5.106885@clgrps13...

Raymond Griffith wrote:

in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:

Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

Gosh Budikka why dont you get it, you would expect an intelligent
designer to use similar genetic paths to produce all creatures.

Completely backwards! We'd expect just the opposite.

You're arguing along the lines of this: a master chef, who has
thousands of different spices at his disposal, would nonetheless
flavor every dish he cooks using only thyme and salt.

First of all, apologies for my ignorance about biology,

Well, ignorance is curable -- if you have a desire to cure it and are
willing to do the study required to do so.

It won't happen overnight.

this
is just an idea...

Glad you admit it.

Instead of a chef, would the creation concept
make more sense if we compare our hypothetical designer to a
computer programmer?

A modern anthropomorphism?

I'm a computer programmer myself,

Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of

ones

self!

That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.

It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.

God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature

take

its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no

flaws.

Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.

Read it. It does not say that it was "perfect". Find me a verse that

says it

was "perfect". You can't.

Starting from God’s Word, everything was ‘very good’ at the end of Day 6.

Hebrew has a perfectly adequate word for "perfect" -- and "very good" is not
it. "Very good" does not mean "perfect". Never has, never will.

It does not have to say prefect. Tech logical conclusion of some thing
very good is that there is no inherent evil. Nothing to suggest a bad
design that is for sure.

Care to try again?

It's logical to assume perfect from the very good stamp of approval
freon God. To assume from were mutations and physical illnesses such as
cancer as evolution would teach is illogically inconsistent with
scripture. I choose to believe scripture, you choose to believe ToE.

And let's see. Who was the original sinner? Adam, Eve, or the snake? By
Genesis 3, please.

Scripture teaches Adam was the original sinner. As by his actions He
(the federal head of mankind) and creation were affected.

The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.

What *did* those spiders eat before the fall, Jist? What did sharks eat?
What did whales eat? Why were wasps made with stingers?

Makes no difference what they ate or how they behaved. For you Raymond,
it is difficult mainly because you don’t understand (or don’t believe)
His revelation about these things.

It certainly does make a difference as to what they ate or how they behaved.

No it does not. You are not prepared to accept anything but an
evolutionary explanation. What scripture teaches is totally opposite to
what ToE teaches. you have to decide which explanation for origins you
are going to accept. You have decided to believe ToE.

Read Job. God ascribes the predatory nature of many creatures to His own
power. If God claims credit for it ....

That has no application to this discussion. Red herring.

And as for His revelation -- you have yet to outline it sufficiently to
prove your point.

Read it. With no prior assumptions.

I believe the Scripture, Jist. But some things are not meant to be taken
literally. Jesus gave truth in parables, after all.

Doctrine is not based on parables Raymond. Parables only enhance or
confirm what is known. That is basic bible 101 Raymond. C'mon, that is
really grasping.

So to say that there was no death at all before the fall is to ignore what
God said in Job, and to make the Scripture say other things it did not.

No not at all. it only means you are trying to force scripture to say
something it plainly and clearly is not.

This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact

that

there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than

perfect

program.

For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since

God

is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for

the

way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my

relative?

Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.

Which is to say, you have no answer either. Rail at the question, but

don't

provide an answer -- that's you! And make assertions about what the

Bible

says without quoting it -- that's you!

No Raymond, I follow the logical consistency of scripture and stick to
the readily available understanding that a plain straightforward reading
of the text gives. You do not.

Actually it is the other way around. You have great leaping gaps in what you
read literally.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, but it seems a belief
in evolution creates huge problems.

It's just that simple. The huge
illogical inconsistencies come in when you try and force scripture to
adhere to *your* ideas.

Which is what I see *you* doing!

How, I am just reading it as is. You are interpreting.

In your case, you are trying to *force*
scripture to fit with your preconceived notions about evolution.

And you force Scripture to fit with your preconceived notions against
evolution.

I am reading it as is, and as it is written, scripture is against evolution.

Won't
work, can't work...as scripture and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.

Nope.

Big yup. The entire evolutionary message is from the deceiver. The
underlying premise of ToE is that God had nothing to do creation. Talk
about the ultimate deception.

I note the "supposed Christian" remark. You are a nasty piece of work.

Geeez Raymond. Why are you so easily offended? Incredible! You run
around here taking all kinds of pot shots and react like a little cry
baby when you read something you don't like.

Not taking pot shots.

Yes you were, you were taking them at the previous poster.
But I do note that you do not answer the questions,

either. But yes, I am offended if you question the fact that I am saved.

I did no such thing!?!

I am *not* offended by the fact that you think I interpret Scripture
incorrectly.

But you do. And it is obvious.
I don't believe that I do, and from my perspective you are one

who does precisely what you claim others (as me) do. But I believe you are
honest about how you see Scripture (even if I do not believe you are honest
in how you portray evolution).

Evolution is inherently a deceitful false doctrine. It totally takes
any any glory away to the real creator of this universe. it is a lie
from the father of lies. And anyone who preaches or teaches it is
proclaiming the deceivers message.

But I believe you are saved.

I believe you are saved and deceived. I don't think it could work the
other way around, fortunately for you.

Noted that Jist has no answers, only insults.

There there Raymond. There there.

Well, then. Answer the questions.

Here is another one. Why the tsunami that claimed the lives of 225,000?

Creation is groaning. I believe birth pangs of the imminent re-birth.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

Raymond E. Griffith

User: "eBataitis"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 03:28:22 PM

Grendel wrote:
(snip)

Gravitation is inherently a deceitful false doctrine. It totally takes
any any glory away to the real creator of this universe. it is a lie
from the father of lies. And anyone who preaches or teaches it is
proclaiming the deceivers message.
Senseless either way.
.

User: "Grendel"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 03:34:37 PM

eBataitis wrote:

Grendel wrote:
(snip)

Evolution is inherently a deceitful false doctrine. It totally takes
any any glory away to the real creator of this universe.
it is a lie
from the father of lies. And anyone who preaches or teaches it is
proclaiming the deceivers message.

No. It points to a scientific law and a lawgiver. It is something that
can be tested all over the earth with various experiments and repeatable
observable results. Try to say evolution is valid by mixing it in with
gravity is like trying to say beer is valid by mixing it with sports.

Senseless either way.

No, only if you assume evolution to be true is it senseless.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	24 Jan 2005 08:28:55 PM

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:34:37 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

It points to a scientific law and a lawgiver.

Scientific law is DESCRIPTIVE, not PROSCRIPTIVE. There's no "giver"
for it.

Try to say evolution is valid by mixing it in with
gravity is like trying to say beer is valid by mixing it with sports.

Evolution has been observed millions of times. Gravity hasn't, only
its effect has. Whether that effect is caused by a force we call
'gravity', or by something else, is something we can't prove.
So you're correct. Evolution is an observation, a fact. Gravity is
only a theory.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Grendel"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	25 Jan 2005 08:53:50 AM

Al Klein wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:34:37 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

It points to a scientific law and a lawgiver.

Scientific law is DESCRIPTIVE, not PROSCRIPTIVE. There's no "giver"
for it.

It does not magically appear from nowhere. EVERY instance of a law
implies a lawgiver based upon simple observation.

Try to say evolution is valid by mixing it in with
gravity is like trying to say beer is valid by mixing it with sports.

Evolution has been observed millions of times.

No, sorry. What you are describing is variation. You have been lied to
and fooled into believing that all those little variations somehow
changed into different organisms. And that it all took place faaar faar
away and a looong loooonnng time ago. It appears you have been told a
fairytale about where you came from.
Gravity hasn't, only

its effect has. Whether that effect is caused by a force we call
'gravity', or by something else, is something we can't prove.

We can test it over and over with the same results.

So you're correct. Evolution is an observation, a fact. Gravity is
only a theory.

You have been lied to. Evolution has most certainly not been observed.
It has been said by some evolutionists in this very forum that it occurs
too slowly to be observed. So are you saying they are wrong?
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	25 Jan 2005 04:09:35 PM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:53:50 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:34:37 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

It points to a scientific law and a lawgiver.

Scientific law is DESCRIPTIVE, not PROSCRIPTIVE. There's no "giver"
for it.

It does not magically appear from nowhere.

No, it appears from someone saying, "Apples fall from trees. I wonder
why and what it means." And we have Newton's laws.

EVERY instance of a law implies a lawgiver based upon simple observation.

Every single instance of a scientific law explicitly shows no
lawgiver, but a law STATER. Newton stated a possible reason apples
fall down. That was a law.
We call them 'theories' these days, but 'scientific theory' and
'scientific law' mean the same thing - something so well researched
and with so much evidence and prediction to back it up that only a
fool would argue against it without *actual evidence* that there's
something wrong with it.
That happened with Einstein. He had enough evidence to challenge
Newton's laws.
'Evolution doesn't happen' isn't evidence, let alone enough to
challenge 'Survival of the Fittest', 'Natural Selection' or a lot of
other theories about evolution.
You have to understand what a scientific law IS before you can talk
about it.

Try to say evolution is valid by mixing it in with
gravity is like trying to say beer is valid by mixing it with sports.

Evolution has been observed millions of times.

No, sorry.

Sorry, yes. The fact that you aren't a clone of your unisexual parent
is proof that your allele frequencies are different than those of your
parents. Not just evidence - proof. (The fact that your species
needs two parents is also proof, unless you're the clone of two
clones.)

What you are describing is variation.

No, what I'm describing is a change in allele frequencies in a
breeding population over time - which is called 'evolution'. I have
no idea what it is that you're claiming doesn't happen. Speciation?
Abiogenesis? The Big Bang?

You have been lied to
and fooled into believing that all those little variations somehow
changed into different organisms.

You're not talking about evolution, you're talking about speciation,
and that's been observed thousands of times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
That you don't accept that bacteria, for example, come in different
species, and that changing from a bacterium that's killed by
penicillin to one that uses penicillin as a food source is a change in
species, doesn't change science.

And that it all took place faaar faar away and a looong loooonnng time ago.

Like every time someone gets infected with HIV, a virus that speciates
with almost every host.

Gravity hasn't, only
its effect has. Whether that effect is caused by a force we call
'gravity', or by something else, is something we can't prove.

We can test it over and over with the same results.

We can't test gravity - we haven't even discovered 'gravity'. All we
can test is the effect we used to claim was caused by what we used to
call gravity.
We're TRYING to detect 'gravity waves', but we haven't detected any
yet. How can we 'test' what we haven't discovered?

So you're correct. Evolution is an observation, a fact. Gravity is
only a theory.

You have been lied to. Evolution has most certainly not been observed.

It has, unless you redefine 'evolution', in which case you're not
qualified to take part in the discussion.

It has been said by some evolutionists in this very forum that it occurs
too slowly to be observed. So are you saying they are wrong?

Yep. If you're talking about speciation, it can - and has been
observed to - occur in a single generation.
See the links I gave above.
If you're talking about evolution - the change in allele frequencies
that evolution really is - it happens every time a creature is
conceived or an egg (or plant equivalent) is fertilized. EVERY SINGLE
TIME. That's billions of times a day, at least.
Evolution IS NOT speciation.
Evolution IS NOT the origin of life.
Evolution IS NOT the Big Bang.
Evolution IS NOT cats giving birth to puppies.
Evolution IS NOT modern monkeys giving birth to humans.
Forget all those creationist lies - creationists don't get to define
scientific terms. Learn what the words mean before you parrot people
who don't even know the meanings of the words they're arguing against.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Grendel"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	25 Jan 2005 04:33:40 PM

Al Klein wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:53:50 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:34:37 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

It points to a scientific law and a lawgiver.

Scientific law is DESCRIPTIVE, not PROSCRIPTIVE. There's no "giver"
for it.

It does not magically appear from nowhere.

No, it appears from someone saying, "Apples fall from trees. I wonder
why and what it means." And we have Newton's laws.

Huh?

EVERY instance of a law implies a lawgiver based upon simple observation.

Every single instance of a scientific law explicitly shows no
lawgiver, but a law STATER. Newton stated a possible reason apples
fall down. That was a law.

With a law giver.

We call them 'theories' these days, but 'scientific theory' and
'scientific law' mean the same thing - something so well researched
and with so much evidence and prediction to back it up that only a
fool would argue against it without *actual evidence* that there's
something wrong with it.

That happened with Einstein. He had enough evidence to challenge
Newton's laws.

'Evolution doesn't happen' isn't evidence, let alone enough to
challenge 'Survival of the Fittest', 'Natural Selection' or a lot of
other theories about evolution.

You have to understand what a scientific law IS before you can talk
about it.

Try to say evolution is valid by mixing it in with
gravity is like trying to say beer is valid by mixing it with sports.

Evolution has been observed millions of times.

No, sorry.

Sorry, yes.

No, no sorry. No.
The fact that you aren't a clone of your unisexual parent

is proof that your allele frequencies are different than those of your
parents. Not just evidence - proof.

What? My parents were human and so am I.
(The fact that your species

needs two parents is also proof, unless you're the clone of two
clones.)

What you are describing is variation.

No, what I'm describing is a change in allele frequencies in a
breeding population over time - which is called 'evolution'.

No, all scientific evidence clearly show that a herd of horses only
produces horses. Same for tigers, and pandas and any breeding population
you can think of.
I have

no idea what it is that you're claiming doesn't happen. Speciation?
Abiogenesis? The Big Bang?

Yes.

You have been lied to
and fooled into believing that all those little variations somehow
changed into different organisms.

You're not talking about evolution, you're talking about speciation,
and that's been observed thousands of times.

Did anyone ever mention to you that talkorigins is site by evolutionists
for evolutionists?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

That you don't accept that bacteria, for example, come in different
species,

Uh, it's still a bacteria.
and that changing from a bacterium that's killed by

penicillin to one that uses penicillin as a food source is a change in
species, doesn't change science.

Uh, ya well uh...it's still a bacteria. Get it?

And that it all took place faaar faar away and a looong loooonnng time ago.

Like every time someone gets infected with HIV, a virus that speciates
with almost every host.

Uh well, aahhh.. cough cough...it's still a virus.

Gravity hasn't, only
its effect has. Whether that effect is caused by a force we call
'gravity', or by something else, is something we can't prove.

We can test it over and over with the same results.

We can't test gravity - we haven't even discovered 'gravity'. All we
can test is the effect we used to claim was caused by what we used to
call gravity.

We're TRYING to detect 'gravity waves', but we haven't detected any
yet. How can we 'test' what we haven't discovered?

So you mean to say you are not aware of any science that has been done
to test the effects of gravity?

So you're correct. Evolution is an observation, a fact. Gravity is
only a theory.

You have been lied to. Evolution has most certainly not been observed.

It has, unless you redefine 'evolution', in which case you're not
qualified to take part in the discussion.

Blow smoke somewhere else.

It has been said by some evolutionists in this very forum that it occurs
too slowly to be observed. So are you saying they are wrong?

Yep. If you're talking about speciation, it can - and has been
observed to - occur in a single generation.

So when exactly does speciation become evolution?

See the links I gave above.

Oh, you mean the ones by evolutionists for evolutionists? You are
kidding right?

If you're talking about evolution - the change in allele frequencies
that evolution really is - it happens every time a creature is
conceived or an egg (or plant equivalent) is fertilized. EVERY SINGLE
TIME. That's billions of times a day, at least.

And you are saying that that can produce different kinds of animals?
What exactly is the mechanism that gives us an increase in genetic material?

Evolution IS NOT speciation.

Oh I see , the drop becomes the ocean and all that.

Evolution IS NOT the origin of life.

What did evolution start from?
I mean, you keep referring to this magical population of morphing
animals. Where did they come from?

Evolution IS NOT the Big Bang.

Could evolution occur without the BB?

Evolution IS NOT cats giving birth to puppies.

Right, I get it, because cats are not found in herds right!?!

Evolution IS NOT modern monkeys giving birth to humans.

Ohhhh ohhhhh.....because we had some mythical ancestor!?!

Forget all those creationist lies - creationists don't get to define
scientific terms. Learn what the words mean before you parrot people
who don't even know the meanings of the words they're arguing against.

This from someone who parroted everything from talkorigins?
Hahahahahahhaaaaa!!!!
Too funny.
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	25 Jan 2005 05:16:05 PM

Grendel wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:53:50 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

<snip>

EVERY instance of a law implies a lawgiver based upon simple
observation.

Every single instance of a scientific law explicitly shows no
lawgiver, but a law STATER. Newton stated a possible reason apples
fall down. That was a law.

With a law giver.

Newton is a law giver? Funny term.
<snip>

is proof that your allele frequencies are different than those of your
parents. Not just evidence - proof.

What? My parents were human and so am I.

You did not address the fact that your allele frequencies are different
than those of your parents.
<snip>

No, what I'm describing is a change in allele frequencies in a
breeding population over time - which is called 'evolution'.

No, all scientific evidence clearly show that a herd of horses only
produces horses. Same for tigers, and pandas and any breeding population
you can think of.

That is not what the scientific evidence shows over long periods of
time.
<snip>

That you don't accept that bacteria, for example, come in different
species,

Uh, it's still a bacteria.

And you aren't still an animal?

and that changing from a bacterium that's killed by
penicillin to one that uses penicillin as a food source is a change in
species, doesn't change science.

Uh, ya well uh...it's still a bacteria. Get it?

Just like humans and other apes are still animals. You don't
seem to have a problem distinguishing them.
<snip>

See the links I gave above.

Oh, you mean the ones by evolutionists for evolutionists? You are
kidding right?

By evolutionists for those who can read.

And you are saying that that can produce different kinds of animals?
What exactly is the mechanism that gives us an increase in genetic
material?

Mutations.
<snip>

Evolution IS NOT the Big Bang.

Could evolution occur without the BB?

Conceivibly.

Evolution IS NOT cats giving birth to puppies.

Right, I get it, because cats are not found in herds right!?!

No, I don't think you do get it.

Evolution IS NOT modern monkeys giving birth to humans.

Ohhhh ohhhhh.....because we had some mythical ancestor!?!

<snip>
You mean the mythical Adam?
Joe
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again	25 Jan 2005 07:19:51 PM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:33:40 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:53:50 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:34:37 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:

It points to a scientific law and a lawgiver.

Scientific law is DESCRIPTIVE, not PROSCRIPTIVE. There's no "giver"
for it.

It does not magically appear from nowhere.

No, it appears from someone saying, "Apples fall from trees. I wonder
why and what it means." And we have Newton's laws.

Huh?

In order to talk about scientific laws you first have to know what
"scientific law" means.

EVERY instance of a law implies a lawgiver based upon simple observation.

Every single instance of a scientific law explicitly shows no
lawgiver, but a law STATER. Newton stated a possible reason apples
fall down. That was a law.

With a law giver.

Newton made the law up, no one gave it to him. "Scientific law" =
"explanation".

The fact that you aren't a clone of your unisexual parent
is proof that your allele frequencies are different than those of your
parents. Not just evidence - proof.

What? My parents were human and so am I.

That proves that you evolved (your allele frequencies are different
than) your parents.

What you are describing is variation.

No, what I'm describing is a change in allele frequencies in a
breeding population over time - which is called 'evolution'.

Yes - you don't get to define what scientists mean by the word
'evolution', they do.

all scientific evidence clearly show that a herd of horses only
produces horses.

And all the colts have allele frequencies different from the allele
frequencies of their parents. They all evolved.

Same for tigers, and pandas and any breeding population
you can think of.

Yep, same thing - all the offspring evolved. Every single time.

I have
no idea what it is that you're claiming doesn't happen. Speciation?
Abiogenesis? The Big Bang?

Yes.

None of which have anything to do with evolution, so why bring them up
in a discussion about evolution?

You have been lied to
and fooled into believing that all those little variations somehow
changed into different organisms.

You're not talking about evolution, you're talking about speciation,
and that's been observed thousands of times.

Did anyone ever mention to you that talkorigins is site by evolutionists
for evolutionists?

So what? Creationists aren't allowed to read sites not put up by
creationists?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
That you don't accept that bacteria, for example, come in different
species,

Uh, it's still a bacteria.

And cats and dogs are still animals. ('Animal' and 'bacterium' are at
the same level.)

and that changing from a bacterium that's killed by
penicillin to one that uses penicillin as a food source is a change in
species, doesn't change science.

Uh, ya well uh...it's still a bacteria. Get it?

And if a cat gave birth to a puppy it would still be an animal. Get
it?

And that it all took place faaar faar away and a looong loooonnng time ago.

Like every time someone gets infected with HIV, a virus that speciates
with almost every host.

Uh well, aahhh.. cough cough...it's still a virus.

Uh well, aahhh.. cough cough... monkeys and people are still animals.

Gravity hasn't, only
its effect has. Whether that effect is caused by a force we call
'gravity', or by something else, is something we can't prove.

We can test it over and over with the same results.

So you mean to say you are not aware of any science that has been done
to test the effects of gravity?

Stop moving the goal posts. We KNOW what the effects are. There IS
NO science that has tested GRAVITY. "The effects of gravity" and
"gravity" aren't the same thing.

So you're correct. Evolution is an observation, a fact. Gravity is
only a theory.

You have been lied to. Evolution has most certainly not been observed.

It has, unless you redefine 'evolution', in which case you're not
qualified to take part in the discussion.

Blow smoke somewhere else.

Telling you what reality is isn't "blowing smoke", unless you just
don't happen to like reality - which creationists don't. That's your
problem, my little wilfully ignorant friend, not mine. I'm not the
one who'll die of a super bug because he doesn't believe in evolution.

It has been said by some evolutionists in this very forum that it occurs
too slowly to be observed. So are you saying they are wrong?

Yep. If you're talking about speciation, it can - and has been
observed to - occur in a single generation.

So when exactly does speciation become evolution?

Who said it ever does? The same person who taught you that evolution
doesn't happen?

See the links I gave above.

Oh, you mean the ones by evolutionists for evolutionists? You are
kidding right?

Nope. The ones by scientists for laymen. But, hey, if you WANT to
remain ignorant, that's YOUR choice.

And you are saying that that can produce different kinds of animals?

Are you saying there's something stopping it from doing so? If so,
exactly what?

What exactly is the mechanism that gives us an increase in genetic material?

What increase in genetic material? Is that another thing you got from
a web site put up by someone who doesn't even know the meanings of the
words he uses?

Evolution IS NOT speciation.

Oh I see , the drop becomes the ocean and all that.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a breeding population
over time.

Evolution IS NOT the origin of life.

What did evolution start from?

Something alive changing.

I mean, you keep referring to this magical population of morphing
animals. Where did they come from?

That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution starts when
something that can reproduce reproduces imperfectly.