| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"IKnowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
23 Jun 2004 12:00:44 PM |
| Object: |
Defeat of Evolution |
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists here so far we have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none) but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of the real
evidence. Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo? And why do
they fall so hard? The only answer seems to be that the only alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism) is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
.
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
28 Jun 2004 03:10:45 PM |
|
|
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>...
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists here so far we have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none) but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of the real
evidence. Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo? And why do
they fall so hard? The only answer seems to be that the only alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism) is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
So you say. But you need more than assertions of Bible Belt
fundamentalists to challenge science.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#Preamble
Preamble
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity --
invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God -- do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in
public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the
dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the
amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See
the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Science in Simple Steps
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages?msg=91.4 -
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers - Paperback -
288 pages 3rd edition (July 1999) Open Univ Pr; ISBN: 0335201091
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0335201091/
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520206894/
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Creationism and Pseudo Science
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Glenn Morton's Creation/Evolution Page
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
Statements from Religious Organizations
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp
Table Of Contents:
American Jewish Congress
American Scientific Affiliation
Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
Central Conference Of American Rabbis
Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (2002) *
The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
The Lutheran World Federation
Roman Catholic Church (1981)
Roman Catholic Church (1996) *
Unitarian Universalist Association (1977)
Unitarian Universalist Association (1982)
United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
United Methodist Church
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1982)
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1983)
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the
stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he
holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive
and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in
Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing
situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and
laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bernard connor" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
24 Jun 2004 12:18:23 PM |
|
|
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>...
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists here so far we have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none) but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of the real
evidence. Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo? And why do
they fall so hard? The only answer seems to be that the only alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism) is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
This is just more nonsense from a creationist.
There are no evolutionary religionists. Science is not a religion.
Bernard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
24 Jun 2004 05:02:56 PM |
|
|
Let me get this right: There are at least 10 major religions in this world,
each of them with its own personalized kind of "God", each having its own
fable of spontaneous creation, but none of them really match. One promises
you passage to heaven to be with everyone who ever passed away, whereas
another promises 72 virgins. Christianity doesn't even rank in the top 5.
They all insist that each is the only true way, yet, other than an old book,
whose passages are ambiguous at best and wide open to interpretation by
their respective "experts", there is nothing. No one has ever seen any of
these "gods". The world is in sloppy disarray, which relegates any
"Creator's" attempt of spontaneous creation to the status of inept hack. Yet
the hordes follow, blindly. Their proof: "Because it says so in the (add
your respective scripture)". No brains required. No interest in the facts
....he made it all, end of story, I don't need to know any more than that ..
good night.
We Atheists do not claim to know all the answers. We do know that life in
some form came into being on this Earth about 3.8B years ago. Did it
originate here or was it accidentally seeded here from spores of the
interstellar medium, we don't know ... but furthermore, we don't care. We
will find out and scientific research will lead the way. We will also find
out if we are really alone in the Universe (extremely unlikely) or if life
in myriad forms is the rule, rather than the exception. After all, 500 years
ago they burned Bruno at the stake for opposing the religious doctrine that
the Earth was flat and also the center of the then perceived universe ... so
much for religious compassion and understanding. We can trace evolution by
fossil records. The nay-sayers insist that they are totally incomplete,
which, of course, is nonsense. They also decry the methods used in dating
these fossils, not realizing that a an error of 5% +- is totally acceptable
to us. More discoveries are made every day, but rather than trying to
understand these finds (which does require a basic understanding of Science
as well as common sense), they stick their nose back into their bibles
decrying any and all scientific results because, you guessed it: It says so
in the Bible; case closed.
And now, on to the 10 Commandments. Merely another unscrupulous rip-off by
the pious. If you query people from 10 different cultural backgrounds to
come up with 10 laws they would like to live by, the answer would be an
almost exact copy of the 10 commandments. It is COMMON SENSE, folks!! Not
the old ***** story of God, Moses, the bush and the mountain ... just
plain, everyday common sense. Yes, even Atheists subscribe to them. Yet
Christian leaders have distorted that fact to the point where the brain-dead
brain-washed masses believe that only a true Christian can believe in and
abide by the STOLEN 10 commandments. So, you believers, if you really want
to do yourselves a favor, pull your head out of the sand and pray to your
respective god to rid the world of religion once and for all, because you
want to return to peaceful lives and an environment blessed by common sense,
rather than spreading the word by the sword. Martyrs of any religion are
idiots and deserve to die ... they'll never see their loved ones in paradise
and there are no 72 virgins waiting.
"bernard connor" <bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6bc4e164.0406240918.2b87a7c8@posting.google.com...
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>...
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists here so far we
have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained
not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none) but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of the real
evidence. Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs
of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over
both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo? And why do
they fall so hard? The only answer seems to be that the only
alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism) is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
This is just more nonsense from a creationist.
There are no evolutionary religionists. Science is not a religion.
Bernard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Allan" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 12:41:31 AM |
|
|
Let me get this right: There are at least 10 major religions in this
world,
each of them with its own personalized kind of "God", each having its own
fable of spontaneous creation, but none of them really match. One promises
you passage to heaven to be with everyone who ever passed away, whereas
another promises 72 virgins. Christianity doesn't even rank in the top 5.
They all insist that each is the only true way, yet, other than an old
book,
whose passages are ambiguous at best and wide open to interpretation by
their respective "experts", there is nothing.
We have more than enough proof that Jesus actually existed by the plethora
of texts written at the time. Historically the Bible is the most accurate
record
ever kept. So Jesus was real and he was serious about what he said -
I am the only way. More than that he claimed to be God himself.
He entered the pit and helped people out I dont see that happening in other
"religeons"
No one has ever seen any of these "gods".
Noone wants to see him so why would they expect to see him?
The world is in sloppy disarray, which relegates any
"Creator's" attempt of spontaneous creation to the status of inept hack.
Or possibly our ability to manage it as pathetic.
Yet the hordes follow, blindly.
I love how we are told we are blind.
I remember high school sitting in my science class looking at a picture
of a fish that had just left the water and was now on dry land and
breathing.
Soon enough it had legs and became a land dweller. Honestly how many fish
can you leave on dry land that stay living more than a week? You could argue
that the land stayed moist protecting the fish but the real problem is that
the fish
at some definate time became a land dweller. I was told this and expected to
swallow it wholly and blindly.
Their proof: "Because it says so in the (add
your respective scripture)". No brains required.
My proof is the complexity of nature and everything in it.
It was designed plain and clear.
No interest in the facts
...he made it all, end of story, I don't need to know any more than that
... good night.
What if we could never understand how he made us?
Would we still rule out the possibility?
We Atheists do not claim to know all the answers.
Anyone who did is a liar.
We do know that life in
some form came into being on this Earth about 3.8B years ago.
The date is wildly debated I dont think we can say we "know"
Did it
originate here or was it accidentally seeded here from spores of the
interstellar medium, we don't know ... but furthermore, we don't care. We
will find out and scientific research will lead the way. We will also find
out if we are really alone in the Universe (extremely unlikely) or if life
in myriad forms is the rule, rather than the exception.
Imagine how significant we would be should the universe (in all its
immense bueaty and splendor) be created just for us?
After all, 500 years
ago they burned Bruno at the stake for opposing the religious doctrine
that
the Earth was flat and also the center of the then perceived universe ...
so
much for religious compassion and understanding.
They had a flawed paradigm. They grew up in the world, it appears flat
enough.
Why wouldn't it be that things just fall down when thats all you know.
The problem with what you said is that I do not believe it was any
particular
religous beliefs that caused the deaths at the hands of the churchy people.
It was thier own small mindedness and thier paradigms which made them think
that way not religeon. The Bible talkes about the world being suspended also
but that is never taken into as much consoderation as is the
"4 corners of the world" example that is used to discredit it.
We can trace evolution by fossil records.
That simply isn't true. We can guess how evolution occured and find fossils
that seem to fit but we do not have a complete lineage from one species to
the next.
The nay-sayers insist that they are totally incomplete,
which, of course, is nonsense.
Are you really suggesting that the fossil record is complete?
They also decry the methods used in dating
these fossils, not realizing that a an error of 5% +- is totally
acceptable
to us.
Its not the accuracy its the method thats the problem . It relies on the
assumption that
(in carbon dating methods) the amount of radio active carbon was
spread out perfectly, it decayed at the same rate it always has over time
and that nothing happend to the specimen to deteriorate the quantity of
carbon within.
Skulls of known age have been tested as being 10's of millions of years old.
Actual date 35 years.
More discoveries are made every day, but rather than trying to
understand these finds (which does require a basic understanding of
Science
as well as common sense), they stick their nose back into their bibles
decrying any and all scientific results because, you guessed it: It says
so
in the Bible; case closed.
I have no problem with the scientific method. I do however see inadequacies
with science in evolution.
And now, on to the 10 Commandments. Merely another unscrupulous rip-off by
the pious. If you query people from 10 different cultural backgrounds to
come up with 10 laws they would like to live by, the answer would be an
almost exact copy of the 10 commandments. It is COMMON SENSE, folks!!
If I asked anyone they will say they want a law on what to do on the day
they chose
to be a sabbath? They will want a law requireing them to love thier parents?
Love God?
Not the old ***** story of God, Moses, the bush and the mountain ...
just
plain, everyday common sense. Yes, even Atheists subscribe to them.
Possibly because the Gods law is in every mans heart?
Yet Christian leaders have distorted that fact to the point where the
brain-dead
brain-washed masses believe that only a true Christian can believe in and
abide by the STOLEN 10 commandments.
Since we have historical evidence that they are 5,000 years old who were
they
stolen off?
So, you believers, if you really want
to do yourselves a favor, pull your head out of the sand and pray to your
respective god to rid the world of religion once and for all,
Yes I am not fond of it euther...
because you
want to return to peaceful lives and an environment blessed by common
sense,
rather than spreading the word by the sword. Martyrs of any religion are
idiots and deserve to die ... they'll never see their loved ones in
paradise
and there are no 72 virgins waiting.
Be extremely careful what you say there mate.
Many Martyrs were killed for no reason at all while delivering food for the
starving
healing the sick and treating the wounded. Who are you to say these people
deserved to
die? If that's the way you judge a persons execution how does your life
compare to some of theirs?
There is allot of evil in religion, you cannot condemn a good man for it
though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Hartog" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 06:50:35 AM |
|
|
"Christopher Allan" <tryagain@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
We have more than enough proof that Jesus actually existed by the plethora
of texts written at the time.
Interesting. What texts do you have in mind?
Dirk Hartog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 11:28:29 PM |
|
|
(Dirk Hartog) astounded us with:
news:acf48a55.0406250350.324b8322@posting.google.com:
"Christopher Allan" <tryagain@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
We have more than enough proof that Jesus actually existed by the plethora
of texts written at the time.
<piggybacking>
Using that logic, there are plenty of texts about Melkor as well, proof that
he existed and was the Satan of middle earth.
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 07:03:02 AM |
|
|
On 25 Jun 2004 04:50:35 -0700, (Dirk Hartog)
wrote:
"Christopher Allan" <tryagain@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
We have more than enough proof that Jesus actually existed by the plethora
of texts written at the time.
Interesting. What texts do you have in mind?
I've never understood this. They always say there is, but they never
produce any of it.
Dan Barker describes this in Losing Faith In Faith. It simply wasn't
an issue for him when he was a believer. When he was training to be a
minister, they spent a couple of hours rattling off names like
Josephus, Tacitus etc but never actually looked at what they'd
written.
Most of them never read these "evidences". Yet they offer them without
knowing anything about them, can't discuss them etc.
Dirk Hartog
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 10:54:43 AM |
|
|
"Christopher Allan" <tryagain@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<fWOCc.63523$sj4.6267@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Let me get this right: There are at least 10 major religions in this
world,
each of them with its own personalized kind of "God", each having its own
fable of spontaneous creation, but none of them really match. One promises
you passage to heaven to be with everyone who ever passed away, whereas
another promises 72 virgins. Christianity doesn't even rank in the top 5.
They all insist that each is the only true way, yet, other than an old
book,
whose passages are ambiguous at best and wide open to interpretation by
their respective "experts", there is nothing.
We have more than enough proof that Jesus actually existed by the plethora
of texts written at the time.
Errmmm... There is only the collection of books you call the bible;
the New Testament of which was written at least a generation after
Jesus. That aand the reference by Josephus, which most scholars
consider a later interpolation.
I find the historical existence of Jesus likely; most rapidly growing
social movements have a nucleus of some kind. But I'm afraid he made
little impression on most people at the time.
Historically the Bible is the most accurate record ever kept.
And your comfirmation of this is ...what it says in the Bible? In any
event, what does all of this have to do with science?
So Jesus was real and he was serious about what he said -
I am the only way. More than that he claimed to be God himself.
He entered the pit and helped people out I dont see that happening in other
"religeons"
Other than Osiris, who was killed and reborn because he showed humans
the path to salvation. And Prometheus, and was tortured by the
other gods for showing us fire, but was later released. And the
Buddha, who stayed in human form to show us the way to freedom, and
escape from death.
No one has ever seen any of these "gods".
Noone wants to see him so why would they expect to see him?
And those who really want to see flying saucers, Hindu gods, or their
dead relatives often see them. True experiences or not, this will not
convince the skeptics.
The world is in sloppy disarray, which relegates any
"Creator's" attempt of spontaneous creation to the status of inept hack.
Or possibly our ability to manage it as pathetic.
Yet the hordes follow, blindly.
I love how we are told we are blind.
I remember high school sitting in my science class looking at a picture
of a fish that had just left the water and was now on dry land and
breathing.
Soon enough it had legs and became a land dweller.
I assure you that your grasp of science is ...sigh. There's no kind
way to say this. It's pathetic. No one suggests that any fish grew
legs. Perhaps it was a very bad teaching program, or a very bad
teacher.
Honestly how many fish
can you leave on dry land that stay living more than a week? You could argue
that the land stayed moist protecting the fish but the real problem is that
the fish
at some definate time became a land dweller. I was told this and expected to
swallow it wholly and blindly.
If you were told this, your teacher was an idiot.
Their proof: "Because it says so in the (add
your respective scripture)". No brains required.
My proof is the complexity of nature and everything in it.
It was designed plain and clear.
Like a snowflake? Every snowflake a miracle, or every snowflake water
molecules coming together under certain conditions and responding to
simple and natural laws of behavior?
No interest in the facts
...he made it all, end of story, I don't need to know any more than that
.. good night.
What if we could never understand how he made us?
Would we still rule out the possibility?
We Atheists do not claim to know all the answers.
Anyone who did is a liar.
However, scientists know a lot. Not all of them are atheists. If
anyone told you that, he was lying.
We do know that life in
some form came into being on this Earth about 3.8B years ago.
The date is wildly debated I dont think we can say we "know"
It is not wildly debated among scientists. It is told to church
congregatiosn that it is widely debated; it is told to you by people
who are earning a libing telling lies to people who had bad science
teachers or who slept thru science class.
Did it
originate here or was it accidentally seeded here from spores of the
interstellar medium, we don't know ... but furthermore, we don't care. We
will find out and scientific research will lead the way. We will also find
out if we are really alone in the Universe (extremely unlikely) or if life
in myriad forms is the rule, rather than the exception.
Imagine how significant we would be should the universe (in all its
immense bueaty and splendor) be created just for us?
Imagine how arrogant and prideful it would be to think this, given the
size of the universe? Why would the god you imagine create whole
galazies that we couldn't see until the twentieth century? IF it was
created, perrhaps he has others projects going besides us.
After all, 500 years
ago they burned Bruno at the stake for opposing the religious doctrine
that
the Earth was flat and also the center of the then perceived universe ...
so
much for religious compassion and understanding.
They had a flawed paradigm. They grew up in the world, it appears flat
enough.
Why wouldn't it be that things just fall down when thats all you know.
The problem with what you said is that I do not believe it was any
particular
religous beliefs that caused the deaths at the hands of the churchy people.
It was thier own small mindedness and thier paradigms which made them think
that way not religeon. The Bible talkes about the world being suspended also
but that is never taken into as much consoderation as is the
"4 corners of the world" example that is used to discredit it.
This is why it should not be used to discredit scientific
investigations. A theist scientist would say "science is the study of
how God does things".
We can trace evolution by fossil records.
That simply isn't true. We can guess how evolution occured and find fossils
that seem to fit but we do not have a complete lineage from one species to
the next.
Do you need every building and skelton and book to build up an
accurate image of ancient Rome?
The nay-sayers insist that they are totally incomplete,
which, of course, is nonsense.
Are you really suggesting that the fossil record is complete?
We are saying that it is far from non-existant. It is *millions of
fossils, forming a clear *overall picture.
They also decry the methods used in dating
these fossils, not realizing that a an error of 5% +- is totally
acceptable
to us.
Its not the accuracy its the method thats the problem . It relies on the
assumption that
(in carbon dating methods) the amount of radio active carbon was
spread out perfectly, it decayed at the same rate it always has over time
and that nothing happend to the specimen to deteriorate the quantity of
carbon within.
There are isotopes other than carbon dating - which isn't accurate for
very old remains anyway (30,000 years, IIRC). There is also the
geological evidence, tree rings, DNA evidence for the more recent
fossils, etc. You would insist that the behavior of the universe
changed, with multiple constants changing, with no evidence, and that
all of these distortions and changes produce corroborating wrong
answers. Why would God try to fool us?
Skulls of known age have been tested as being 10's of millions of years old.
Actual date 35 years.
You have a citation?
More discoveries are made every day, but rather than trying to
understand these finds (which does require a basic understanding of
Science
as well as common sense), they stick their nose back into their bibles
decrying any and all scientific results because, you guessed it: It says
so
in the Bible; case closed.
I have no problem with the scientific method. I do however see inadequacies
with science in evolution.
Since evolution and an old universe is supported by chemistry,
biochemistry, genetics, botany, comparative anatomy, radiochemistry,
astronomy, cultural and physical paleontology, anthropology, history,
and the behavioral sciences, you're left with very little, I'm afraid.
And now, on to the 10 Commandments. <snip religious arguments>
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 08:23:58 PM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
"Christopher Allan" <tryagain@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<fWOCc.63523$sj4.6267@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
We can trace evolution by fossil records.
That simply isn't true. We can guess how evolution occured and find fossils
that seem to fit but we do not have a complete lineage from one species to
the next.
Considering your ignorance about science, I
suppose you are not aware of how fossils are
formed? It can be a very chancy thing -
conditions must be just right for a fossil to be
created. Most deaths have occurred on land where
the carcass just rots away leaving nothing to be
found later. The "best" fossils are created with
the assistance of water - and a good quick
covering of sand, silt, mud, etc. To expect over
millions of years for each step in the
evolutionary chain to politely suicide in water -
with the assurance it will be quickly covered - is
asinine.
Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. If
a complete line was found in one location - with
each step perfectly preserved for study - THAT
would be a true miracle.
Also - fossil hunting has been occurring for only
the last 150 (approx) years......estimates are
that only 1% of the possible fossils have been
found. And each year unknowable numbers of
fossils are destroyed by the elements.
Lastly, some scientists believe there is not a
smooth progress of evolution ; that it occurs in
fits and starts. Most changes seem to occur after
each of the great extinctions when surviving
species change/mutate to fill empty ecological niches.
Pangur - avid fossil hunter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
24 Jun 2004 06:35:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:02:56 GMT, "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> posted thusly:
Your argument is that if something is in the minority,
there is no reason to think that it's true. That
doesn't make sense. Many beliefs that were in the
minority, were proved to be true.
Let me get this right: There are at least 10 major religions in this world,
each of them with its own personalized kind of "God", each having its own
fable of spontaneous creation, but none of them really match. One promises
you passage to heaven to be with everyone who ever passed away, whereas
another promises 72 virgins. Christianity doesn't even rank in the top 5.
They all insist that each is the only true way, yet, other than an old book,
whose passages are ambiguous at best and wide open to interpretation by
their respective "experts", there is nothing. No one has ever seen any of
these "gods". The world is in sloppy disarray, which relegates any
"Creator's" attempt of spontaneous creation to the status of inept hack. Yet
the hordes follow, blindly. Their proof: "Because it says so in the (add
your respective scripture)". No brains required. No interest in the facts
...he made it all, end of story, I don't need to know any more than that ..
good night.
We Atheists do not claim to know all the answers. We do know that life in
some form came into being on this Earth about 3.8B years ago. Did it
originate here or was it accidentally seeded here from spores of the
interstellar medium, we don't know ... but furthermore, we don't care. We
will find out and scientific research will lead the way. We will also find
out if we are really alone in the Universe (extremely unlikely) or if life
in myriad forms is the rule, rather than the exception. After all, 500 years
ago they burned Bruno at the stake for opposing the religious doctrine that
the Earth was flat and also the center of the then perceived universe ... so
much for religious compassion and understanding. We can trace evolution by
fossil records. The nay-sayers insist that they are totally incomplete,
which, of course, is nonsense. They also decry the methods used in dating
these fossils, not realizing that a an error of 5% +- is totally acceptable
to us. More discoveries are made every day, but rather than trying to
understand these finds (which does require a basic understanding of Science
as well as common sense), they stick their nose back into their bibles
decrying any and all scientific results because, you guessed it: It says so
in the Bible; case closed.
And now, on to the 10 Commandments. Merely another unscrupulous rip-off by
the pious. If you query people from 10 different cultural backgrounds to
come up with 10 laws they would like to live by, the answer would be an
almost exact copy of the 10 commandments. It is COMMON SENSE, folks!! Not
the old ***** story of God, Moses, the bush and the mountain ... just
plain, everyday common sense. Yes, even Atheists subscribe to them. Yet
Christian leaders have distorted that fact to the point where the brain-dead
brain-washed masses believe that only a true Christian can believe in and
abide by the STOLEN 10 commandments. So, you believers, if you really want
to do yourselves a favor, pull your head out of the sand and pray to your
respective god to rid the world of religion once and for all, because you
want to return to peaceful lives and an environment blessed by common sense,
rather than spreading the word by the sword. Martyrs of any religion are
idiots and deserve to die ... they'll never see their loved ones in paradise
and there are no 72 virgins waiting.
"bernard connor" <bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6bc4e164.0406240918.2b87a7c8@posting.google.com...
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>...
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists here so far we
have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained
not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none) but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of the real
evidence. Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs
of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over
both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo? And why do
they fall so hard? The only answer seems to be that the only
alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism) is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
This is just more nonsense from a creationist.
There are no evolutionary religionists. Science is not a religion.
Bernard.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good
to maintain and further life; it is bad to damage
and destroy life." - Albert Schweitzer
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 02:53:55 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<q8pmd0p0pfhk6tblusk68nd9881cmrpuq6@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:02:56 GMT, "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> posted thusly:
Your argument is that if something is in the minority,
there is no reason to think that it's true. That
doesn't make sense. Many beliefs that were in the
minority, were proved to be true.
No Dave, the argument is more like there are many
religions that have equal claims to truth. Your
claim to a "special" truth is no more valid than
anyone else's. In religion, nothing will be proved
to be true.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SReeseMe" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
23 Jun 2004 08:12:19 PM |
|
|
Subject: Defeat of Evolution
From: (IKnowHimDoYou)
Date: 06/23/2004 1:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists
1 Evolution is science not religion. Science is science and religion is
religion
here so far we have
seen that there is ample reason to >believe that Darwinism is sustained not
by an impartial interpretation of the >evidence(there is none)
2 The evidence for evolution is quite abundant.
but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even >in the teeth of the real
evidence.
3 Evidence against evolution? Please provide some.
Evolutionary religion has given us several theories
4 The word theory has a quite specific meaning, I suggest you learn it, you'll
look like less of a twit that way.
and gobs of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
5 Lie! There is no disagreement over what evolution is. There is speculation
over exactly how it happens, not over if it happens.
6 Theories change and new ones develop (dare I say evolve?) as new and better
information is discovered.
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo?
7 The only voodoo people fall for is the ***** known as religion.
And why do
they fall so hard? The only answer seems to be that the only alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism)
8 Really? Many, if not most Christians are "theistic evolutionists"
including the current Pope.
is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
9 There is neither evidence for either a special creation nor an almighty
creator.
I know this is a nasty shock to your somewhat demented worldview but you really
do need to come to grips with it.
10 You really are leaving a lot out. As a practicing theist modern biology is
really the least of your problems. You also have to worry about astronomy,
astrophysics, cosmology, archology, geology, geophysics, chemistry and quantum
mechanics. I can't wait for your rational for those sciences really being
"religions."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
24 Jun 2004 12:00:28 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2004 01:12:19 GMT, (SReeseMe) wrote:
Subject: Defeat of Evolution
From: (IKnowHimDoYou)
Date: 06/23/2004 1:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists
1 Evolution is science not religion. Science is science and religion is
religion
It does no good to talk to it - it cant think.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
23 Jun 2004 02:03:16 PM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists here so far we have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none) but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of the real
evidence.
I've heard that so,e people think if they say something three times it
must be true. Are you waiting for the day you can say "I've said it
three thousand times, so it must be true"?
Poor dope.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
23 Jun 2004 01:25:34 PM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists here so far we have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none) but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of the real
evidence. Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo? And why do
they fall so hard? The only answer seems to be that the only alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism) is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
There are some other questions you might also need to consider. Why did
so many God-fearing Christians, steeped in creationist thought, become
evolutionists upon examination of Darwin's evidence? Why do so many
devout Christians today consider evolution to be better supported by the
facts than creationism is? Why isn't their evaluation "impartial,"
seeing as they already believe in an Almighty Creator to whom they are
not only accountable but willingly subservient?
Why is the evolutionary design for living organisms so much more
sophisticated, resilient, self-maintaining, and downright ingenious than
anything creationists have been willing to give God credit for? Why
couldn't God have come up with a design as clever as what the
evolutionists have come up with? Why do creationists insist that God
has ordained that "kinds" cannot change, when there is neither
Scriptural statement nor scientific evidence regarding any limits on the
adaptability of kinds? Especially when such limits result in an
inferior, less-robust creation?
What "religion" is there in scientific conclusions that have been
observed, critiqued, tested, and verified by Christians of all
denominations, as well as Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Hindus,
agnostics, atheists, and virtually every other religious group? Where
are the agnostic creationists? Why is the middle ground between
creation and evolution filled by theistic evolutionists rather than
agnostic creationists?
Why does "creation science" focus on anti-discovery (i.e. trying to
reject or discredit what other scientists discover) rather than on
actually producing testable and verifiable discoveries about the real
world? Why do creationists so often resort to selective, out-of-context
quotations that create a false impression of what evolutionary
scientists are actually saying? If evolutionary scientists are trying
to foist some arbitrary, pre-arranged lie upon the world, why do they
have all the debates and the controversies and the facts and figures
that creationists are constantly mining for the quotes they use to try
and make it sound like evolutionary theory is falling apart?
Of course, that's just a few off the top of my head. If you really want
to know the truth, I suggest you start with just one simple question:
Why do some scientific theories eventually triumph over others? If you
can really understand the answer to that one, you might find out that
God is not, after all, limited to what "creationist" men can imagine.
Good luck.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
23 Jun 2004 04:19:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:25:34 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> wrote:
In article <IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Defeat of Evolution
Excellent response but I'm afraid this individual is either of limited
or no brain, or it could be a clever parody by a mischevious atheist.
Assuming it is a creationist I think you'd have a better chance of
becoming the next pope than getting any sense into it's thick skull.
I only feel sorry for the theists in the cross-posted newsgroups to
have such an imbecile in their midst.
JPG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
23 Jun 2004 04:51:00 PM |
|
|
"JPG" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0ksjd0tapfuuak759rutj05tqkkcbl2slf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:25:34 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> wrote:
In article <IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Defeat of Evolution
Excellent response but I'm afraid this individual is either of limited
or no brain, or it could be a clever parody by a mischevious atheist.
Assuming it is a creationist I think you'd have a better chance of
becoming the next pope than getting any sense into it's thick skull.
I only feel sorry for the theists in the cross-posted newsgroups to
have such an imbecile in their midst.
But since I don't see them complaining, I can only assume they approve of
its behavior.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Andrews" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
24 Jun 2004 08:57:28 AM |
|
|
JPG <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<0ksjd0tapfuuak759rutj05tqkkcbl2slf@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:25:34 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> wrote:
In article <IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Defeat of Evolution
Excellent response but I'm afraid this individual is either of limited
or no brain, or it could be a clever parody by a mischevious atheist.
Assuming it is a creationist I think you'd have a better chance of
becoming the next pope than getting any sense into it's thick skull.
I only feel sorry for the theists in the cross-posted newsgroups to
have such an imbecile in their midst.
JPG
I don't think he ever reads any responses to his posts. If he can even
read. Him being from Kalama, WA I doubt he got a good enough
education and his posts are most likely cut and paste jobs.
Roger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Silver Blaze" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
23 Jun 2004 10:00:32 PM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-2306041000440001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
This displays your whole mental problem. You want a scientific answer (in
your case the Book of Genesis - Good luck, stupid - its a book of myths)
that remains static and unchangeable.
Science is based on experimient , observation and knowledge, it evolves.
In the case of evolutionary theory the question of evolution per se has
long been settled. Are you seriously suggesting science shouldn't be
investigating its mechanisms?
You behave like someone afraid of truth
That is a psychological problem that could be fixed - but you need a lot
of help and courage to do so
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
23 Jun 2004 11:58:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:00:44 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Defeat of Evolution
Are connected to de shins...
De shins are connected to de knees ...
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
24 Jun 2004 03:27:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:00:44 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists
Evolution is not a religion.
here so far we have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none)
Evolution is supported by more evidence than practically anything in
science besides QM. Try opening a textbook sometime, or visiting
www.talkorigins.org , where you can have it explained in detail.
but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy
Evolution is not a philosophy, either.
even in the teeth of the real
evidence.
Such as...?
Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
Citations?
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo? And why do
they fall so hard?
Excuse me? For someone whose alternative to the scientific
interpretation of the evidence is an appeal to magic, you might want
to refrain from calling evolution "voodoo".
The only answer seems to be that the only alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism) is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
False dichotomy. Also, millions of educated Christians have no problem
accepting evolution as factual; it's only Biblical literalists who
have a problem with it
.
|
|
|
| User: "bardi" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
24 Jun 2004 04:53:29 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:a0emd0tv8q9ssundiq96lm30u1e6afqcni@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:00:44 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Defeat of Evolution
With all the posting by the evolutionary religionists
Evolution is not a religion.
here so far we have
seen that there is ample reason to believe that Darwinism is sustained
not
by an impartial interpretation of the evidence(there is none)
Evolution is supported by more evidence than practically anything in
science besides QM. Try opening a textbook sometime, or visiting
www.talkorigins.org , where you can have it explained in detail.
but by a
dogmatic adherence to a philosophy
Evolution is not a philosophy, either.
even in the teeth of the real
evidence.
Such as...?
Evolutionary religion has given us several theories and gobs of
speculations and suppositions showing a substantial disagreement over
both
mechanism and philosophy telling us that they cannot even agree among
themselves what "evolution" is.
Citations?
The question is: why do these people fall for this voodoo? And why do
they fall so hard?
Excuse me? For someone whose alternative to the scientific
interpretation of the evidence is an appeal to magic, you might want
to refrain from calling evolution "voodoo".
The only answer seems to be that the only alternative
to evolution(a form of militant atheism) is special creation by an
Almighty Creator to whom they must be accountable.
False dichotomy. Also, millions of educated Christians have no problem
accepting evolution as factual; it's only Biblical literalists who
have a problem with it
All of the above quite true. However, given the fact that evolution is
mythology, it is understandable why people would get confused,eh?
dnp
bardi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
24 Jun 2004 06:52:57 PM |
|
|
In article <A3ICc.5845$1F6.1157@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
All of the above quite true. However, given the fact that evolution is
mythology, it is understandable why people would get confused,eh?
Interestingly, if you strip away all the religion and mythology and
philosophy, and teach only the observed data, you still get a science
class that Biblical creationists will accuse of being biased in favor of
evolution. Unless you explicitly and dogmatically assert that some
supernatural agency created the world we live in, creationists will
accuse you of failing to present a "balanced" consideration of all
possible theories.
It is not scientific to appeal to inscrutable and arbitrary supernatural
agencies in order to explain one's observations (otherwise fairies and
dragons and a whole host of other supernatural agents would become
"scientific"). Consequently, if you stick to science in the science
classrooms, you will omit the supernatural attributions, and the
creationists will complain that you are biased in favor of evolution.
Which, in a roundabout way, is a tacit admission that the scientific
data itself is biased in favor of evolution. Go figure.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "bardi" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 05:50:24 AM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-C54906.19525724062004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <A3ICc.5845$1F6.1157@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
All of the above quite true. However, given the fact that evolution is
mythology, it is understandable why people would get confused,eh?
Interestingly, if you strip away all the religion and mythology and
philosophy, and teach only the observed data, you still get a science
class that Biblical creationists will accuse of being biased in favor of
evolution. Unless you explicitly and dogmatically assert that some
supernatural agency created the world we live in, creationists will
accuse you of failing to present a "balanced" consideration of all
possible theories.
It is not scientific to appeal to inscrutable and arbitrary supernatural
agencies in order to explain one's observations (otherwise fairies and
dragons and a whole host of other supernatural agents would become
"scientific"). Consequently, if you stick to science in the science
classrooms, you will omit the supernatural attributions, and the
creationists will complain that you are biased in favor of evolution.
Which, in a roundabout way, is a tacit admission that the scientific
data itself is biased in favor of evolution. Go figure.
Mark Nutter
Not my point at all though. We are not talking about data from either
viewpoint. If you leave both constructs as they are..creationism..and
evolution..they are both mythologies. Think about it..and what the tacit
error is that they both share?
dnp
bardo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 08:21:38 AM |
|
|
In article <ZrTCc.6510$1F6.2252@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
Not my point at all though. We are not talking about data from either
viewpoint. If you leave both constructs as they are..creationism..and
evolution..they are both mythologies. Think about it..and what the tacit
error is that they both share?
That depends. What exactly do you mean by "mythology"? Is atomic
theory also mythology? The Big Bang? Special and general relativity?
Electromagnetic radiation?
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "bardi" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 10:14:55 AM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-E9D53C.09213825062004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <ZrTCc.6510$1F6.2252@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
Not my point at all though. We are not talking about data from either
viewpoint. If you leave both constructs as they are..creationism..and
evolution..they are both mythologies. Think about it..and what the tacit
error is that they both share?
That depends. What exactly do you mean by "mythology"? Is atomic
theory also mythology? The Big Bang? Special and general relativity?
Electromagnetic radiation?
Mark Nutter
hmm..fair quieston..atomic theory..not really. The Big Bang..certainly.
relativity or quantum mechanics? no. radiation..no.
dnp
bardi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 02:19:27 PM |
|
|
In article <YjXCc.6524$1F6.4539@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-E9D53C.09213825062004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <ZrTCc.6510$1F6.2252@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
Not my point at all though. We are not talking about data from either
viewpoint. If you leave both constructs as they are..creationism..and
evolution..they are both mythologies. Think about it..and what the tacit
error is that they both share?
That depends. What exactly do you mean by "mythology"? Is atomic
theory also mythology? The Big Bang? Special and general relativity?
Electromagnetic radiation?
Mark Nutter
hmm..fair quieston..atomic theory..not really. The Big Bang..certainly.
relativity or quantum mechanics? no. radiation..no.
Then by "mythology" I presume you mean "a story of origins," which would
be "mythological" in the sense that nobody was actually there to serve
as an eyewitness. Correct?
But of course, nobody can witness an atom or a quark or a neutrino,
either, so maybe I'm still not getting your definition of "mythological."
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "bardi" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 06:06:44 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-A47AD0.15192725062004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <YjXCc.6524$1F6.4539@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-E9D53C.09213825062004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <ZrTCc.6510$1F6.2252@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
Not my point at all though. We are not talking about data from
either
viewpoint. If you leave both constructs as they
are..creationism..and
evolution..they are both mythologies. Think about it..and what the
tacit
error is that they both share?
That depends. What exactly do you mean by "mythology"? Is atomic
theory also mythology? The Big Bang? Special and general relativity?
Electromagnetic radiation?
Mark Nutter
hmm..fair quieston..atomic theory..not really. The Big Bang..certainly.
relativity or quantum mechanics? no. radiation..no.
Then by "mythology" I presume you mean "a story of origins," which would
be "mythological" in the sense that nobody was actually there to serve
as an eyewitness. Correct?
But of course, nobody can witness an atom or a quark or a neutrino,
either, so maybe I'm still not getting your definition of "mythological."
Mark Nutter
You are getting close..not totally on the money..but close.
dnp
bardi
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
27 Jun 2004 07:19:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:21:38 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> wrote:
In article <ZrTCc.6510$1F6.2252@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
Not my point at all though. We are not talking about data from either
viewpoint. If you leave both constructs as they are..creationism..and
evolution..they are both mythologies. Think about it..and what the tacit
error is that they both share?
That depends. What exactly do you mean by "mythology"? Is atomic
theory also mythology? The Big Bang? Special and general relativity?
Electromagnetic radiation?
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/
Good point.
Is anything NOT a mythology?
If everything is a mythology the word has no meaning.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeat of Evolution |
25 Jun 2004 08:29:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:21:38 -0400, Mark Nutter
<manutter51@alethian.org> wrote:
In article <ZrTCc.6510$1F6.2252@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
"bardi" <toriley@fuse.net> wrote:
Not my point at all though. We are not talking about data from either
viewpoint. If you leave both constructs as they are..creationism..and
evolution..they are both mythologies. Think about it..and what the tacit
error is that they both share?
That depends. What exactly do you mean by "mythology"? Is atomic
theory also mythology? The Big Bang? Special and general relativity?
Electromagnetic radiation?
Only if *Y*O*U* expand the meaning of mythology into meaninglessness.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
