| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
29 Jul 2007 12:53:13 AM |
| Object: |
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
http://www.sedin.org/propeng/defeat1.htm
Phillip E. Johnson
Excerpts from Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is: "Precisely what do you mean by evolution?"
That one word evolution can mean something so tiny it hardly matters,
or so big it explains the whole history of the universe. (Ch. 3:
Turning Up Your Baloney Detector, pp. 44-45)
EDUCATION
An Education in Evolution Young people need to take advantage of the
wonderful educational opportunities our society offers, but they also
need to protect themselves from the indoctrination in naturalism that
so often accompanies education. Textbooks and other educational
materials today take evolutionary naturalism for granted, and thus
assume the wrong answer to the most important question we face: Is
there a God who created us and cares about what we do? Young people
need to be prepared for the indoctrination, and for that they need to
know some things that the public schools aren't allowed to teach them.
(Introduction, p. 10)
If high-schoolers need a good high-school education in how to think
about evolution, professors and senior scientists seem to need it just
as badly. That's what this book aims to give_a good high-school
education in how to think about evolution. It's for high-schoolers,
college students, parents, teachers, youth workers, pastors and also
scientists whose education didn't encourage them to take a skeptical
look at the claims of Darwinian theory. (Introduction, p. 11)
Developing Good Thinking Habits
Understanding evolution is mainly a matter of opening minds, of
freeing people to think about it as they would other important
subjects. All it really takes is precise definitions and good thinking
habits. The skills you'll develop in learning to understand evolution
will come in handy for a lot of other things too. Actually, you'll
find out that they are the same skills that scientists like Carl Sagan
have advocated all along. It's just that we are going to apply those
skills to evolution, a subject that has for too long been protected
from critical thinking by law and academic custom. (Introduction, p.
12)
Educational Censorship
It's an absurd situation, isn't it? Educators aren't allowed to
address the issues about which their students, and the general public,
are most concerned. When teachers challenge students to think about
how their worldviews affect their understanding of the creation-
evolution controversy, so-called civil liberties lawyers censor the
teaching by threatening to bring a lawsuit that the school district
can't afford to defend. (Ch. 3: Turning Up Your Baloney Detector, pp.
52)
The predictable result of this one-sided educational and legal regime
is that evolution has become the focus of a culture war instead of a
subject that can be discussed constructively in educational
institutions or in the political realm of negotiation and compromise.
The science educators teach the students that they were created by
evolution and that evolution is a purposeless and unsupervised natural
process. Of course those statements go far beyond the scientific
evidence and state a religious position, but educators also insist
with a straight face that they are not saying anything about religion
or God. If they were addressing the subject of religion, they would
have to allow the other side to be argued. Therefore they must not be
addressing it. (Ch. 4: A Real Education in Evolution, p. 54)
SCIENCE
The Official Statement on What Biology Teachers Believe
The 1995 official position statement of the American National
Association of Biology Teachers (hereafter NABT) accurately states the
general understanding of major science organizations and educators:
"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of
temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural
selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
environments." Or, in the words of the famous evolutionist George
Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural
process that did not have him in mind." (Ch. 1: Emilio's Letter, p.
15)
The "Evolution" of Corvettes
Here is [zoology professor Tim] Berra's explanation of "evolution,
which comes illustrated with photographs of automobiles in the middle
of the book:
Everything evolves, in the sense of "descent with modification,"
whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars or organisms.
The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane
automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette's
evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original
102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray
model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today's
Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the
1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today's version
continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since
1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection
process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional
forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A
similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.
Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The
Corvette sequence_like the sequence of Beethoven's symphonies or the
opinions of the United States Supreme Court_does not illustrate
naturalistic evolution at all--. It illustrates how intelligent
designers will typically achieve their purposes by adding variations
to a basic design plan. Above all, such sequences have no tendency
whatever to support the claim that there is no need for a Creator,
since blind natural forces can do the creating. On the contrary, they
show that what biologists present as proof of "evolution" or "common
ancestry" is just as likely to be evidence of common design. (Ch. 4: A
Real Education in Evolution, pp. 62-63)
Natural Selection
Computer selection, like automobile design, illustrates intelligent
planning (authorship), not chance or survival of the fittest. It is
just as if an author were writing the target phrase, except that the
author has to wait a bit for the right letters to appear in the right
spaces. The first letters to appear are meaningless, and the computer
knows which ones to select only because it has the target text in its
memory.
Natural selection, on the other hand, is supposed to be mindless and
hence incapable of pursuing a distant goal. If natural selection could
preserve a presently meaningless mutation because it might become
useful later on when other new mutations occur, this would imply that
evolution is a purposeful process, supervised by a preexisting mind.
As we have seen, supervised evolution is a gradualist version of
creationism. As materialists use the term, it is not evolution at all.
(Ch. 5: Intelligent Design, pp. 74-75)
Irreducibly Complex Black Boxes
Molecular mechanisms are irreducibly complex. What this means is
simply that they are made up of many parts that interact in complex
ways, and all the parts need to work together. Any single part has no
useful function unless all the other parts are also present. There is
therefore no pathway of functional intermediate stages by which a
Darwinian process could build such a system step by step.
Molecular mechanisms, Behe says, are as obviously designed as a
spaceship or a computer. You can't explain the origin of any
biological capability (like vision) unless you can explain the origin
of the molecular mechanisms that make it work. Evolutionary biologists
have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems
originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that
biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they
know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific
explanation. (Ch. 5: Intelligent Design, p. 77)
The Big Three: First Marx and Freud . . .
Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as
preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were
regarded as "scientific" (and hence far more reliable than anything
"religious") in their heyday. Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even
their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights
were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of
experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block.
His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three.
Darwinism in the West is in much the same condition as was Soviet
Marxism in its last days. Its power and prestige rest not on any real
scientific accomplishments but on the theory's role in upholding the
ruling philosophy. (Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p. 113)
RELIGION
Why Evolution Can't Be Theistic
The Darwinian theory doesn't just say that God created slowly. It says
that naturalistic evolution is the creator, and God had nothing to do
with it. (Ch. 1: Emilio's Letter, p. 16)
The important question is not whether God "exists"; it is whether God
cares about us, and whether we need to care about God's purposes.
Deism answers no to these questions. For that reason even George
Gaylord Simpson found deism to be perfectly consistent with his
Darwinian doctrine that our true creator is a purposeless material
system. (Ch. 1: Emilio's Letter, p. 17)
It Goes Both Ways
Every scientific materialist who reads this will understandably want
to ask: "Are you willing to apply baloney detecting to religion, as
well as science? The answer is (emphatically) yes! I can't think of a
better way to introduce students to Christianity than to invite them
to read the Gospels with care and to ask all the tough
questions. . . . Dealing with the tough questions is a lifelong
business, and the most important educational point is not to try to
spoonfeed students with oversimplified answers that won't stand the
tests of time and experience. (Ch. 4: A Real Education in Evolution,
p. 65)
Faith
Faith is not something some people have and others don't. Faith also
isn't something opposed to reason. Faith is something that everybody
needs to get started in any direction, and to keep going in the face
of discouragement. Reason builds on a foundation of faith. (Ch. 4: A
Real Education in Evolution, p. 66)
A faith that has to be protected behind walls is like a house built on
sand. When the protection ceases, the faith collapses. Faith is
confirmed by testing and validated by struggle in a world that gives a
multitude of reasons for doubt. (Ch. 6: The Wedge, p. 91)
What the Pope Actually Said
Far from endorsing the materialist understanding of evolution that
dominates contemporary science, the pope pronounced that "theories of
evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them,
consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as
a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth
about man." (Ch. 6: The Wedge, p. 85)
How We Think about God
As students grow more and more accustomed to assuming materialism and
naturalism in their academic work, the concept of creation by God
gradually tends to become less real to them. It is not so much that
any single finding undermines their faith; rather, the day-to-day
practice of thinking in naturalistic terms about academic subjects
makes it awkward to think differently when it comes to religion. (Ch.
6: The Wedge, p. 88)
When people are taught for years on end that good thinking is
naturalistic thinking, and that bringing God into the picture only
leads to confusion and error, they have to be pretty dense not to get
the point that God must be an illusion. This doesn't necessarily mean
that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a
naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a
reality that nobody can afford to ignore. (Ch. 6: The Wedge, p. 88-89)
CULTURE
Propaganda
The play [Inherit the Wind] is a fictionalized account of the "Scopes
Trial" of 1925 . . . Inherit the Wind is a masterpiece of propaganda,
promoting a stereotype of the public debate about creation and
evolution that gives all virtue and intelligence to the Darwinists.
(Ch. 2: Inherit the Wind, p. 25)
What are the Options?
The culture tells us that we have two alternatives. We can accept
"evolution" as the scientists understand the term, which means that we
accept naturalism and materialism (even if we pretend otherwise).
Alternatively, we can reject evolution_in which case Microphone Man
will stereotype us as premodern fundamentalists who insist on every
detail of Genesis regardless of the evidence. Should we fight, or
should we accommodate on the best terms we can get from the
materialists? (Ch. 6: The Wedge, pp. 86-87)
Tough Questions
If the materialist domination of the intellectual world is seriously
called into question, it will be possible for the next generation of
Christians to enter the universities as participants in the search for
truth, not as outsiders who have no choice but to submit to
materialist rules. Instead of retreating from the public world of
reason into the protected territory of faith, they will be pressing
the questions that need to be pressed. Here are just a few of them:
Why should the life of the mind exclude the possibility that a mind is
behind our existence? Why should we assume that modern materialist
philosophies are the wave of the future instead of a holdover from the
nineteenth century? If information is something fundamentally
different from matter, what is the ultimate source of the information?
Will science be harmed if it gives up its ambition to explain
everything, or has that ambition only harmed science by tempting
scientists to resort to unsound methods? If materialism is not an
adequate starting point for rationality, what alternatives are there?
(Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p. 115)
The Marketplace: A Lab for Ideas
Like it or not, our world is a marketplace for good and bad ideas just
as Athens was in Paul's day. The media and the Internet ensure that no
reservation is sealed off from those ideas. We can do our best to
prepare young people for what is coming, and to protect them for a
little while, but in the end they will have to go out into that
marketplace by themselves. (Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p.
117)
There is no guarantee that freedom of inquiry will generate the
answers we want_that's why we call it freedom! This bothers a lot of
people, who don't want to participate in a search for truth unless
they are assured in advance that the truth will be one they can
accept. (Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p. 117)
The Next Step
As long as the secular intellectual world is irrevocably committed to
materialism, then Christian doctrines like supernatural creation and
the resurrection are false by definition and can hardly survive
academic scrutiny. Conversely, if those doctrines are true, then
materialism, as a general worldview, isn't true. In that case the
rules of the secular academy are open to question, to put it mildly.
To step off the reservation to question the rules of the larger
society is to take a great risk, but perhaps also to find a great
opportunity. We will never know how great the opportunity was if we
are afraid to take the risk. (Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p.
118
.
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
06 Aug 2007 07:29:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:07:00 -0400, "Cj" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote
... No one has actually
witnessed one species over time become a different species.
Dan
This is not true, such transitions have been observed both in the field and
in the laboratory. Why do you want to lie about this?
If a cow, didn't turn into a dog, then it doesn't count.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 11:29:14 AM |
|
|
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:46B08BF4.6040302@noreply.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:13 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is:
"Do you believe in gravity?" Or "Do you believe in water?"
What exactly does this mean. Even an idiot can actually know
if he slips gravity will cause him to fall and get hurt. Unlike
evolution gravity is actually witnessed. No one has actually
witnessed one species over time become a different species.
Dan
No Deadwood, the effects of gravity have been observed. We actually don't
know that much about gravity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
05 Aug 2007 08:17:18 PM |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wx2si.17543$MW6.10588@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:46B08BF4.6040302@noreply.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:13 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is:
"Do you believe in gravity?" Or "Do you believe in water?"
What exactly does this mean. Even an idiot can actually know
if he slips gravity will cause him to fall and get hurt. Unlike
evolution gravity is actually witnessed. No one has actually
witnessed one species over time become a different species.
Dan
No Deadwood, the effects of gravity have been observed. We actually don't
know that much about gravity.
Say Deadwood, are you going to answer the post or not??
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
06 Aug 2007 08:32:52 PM |
|
|
dan:
No one has actually witnessed one species over time become a different species.
"A species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one
another. However, when a species is separated into populations that
are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the
selection of different traits by different environments cause the
accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new
species. The similarities between organisms suggest that all known
species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool)
through this process of ***gradual divergence***."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 08:18:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:34:44 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:13 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is:
"Do you believe in gravity?" Or "Do you believe in water?"
What exactly does this mean.
It means that evolution is as much a fact as gravity or water. It's
an observation that we named "evolution".
Even an idiot can actually know
if he slips gravity will cause him to fall and get hurt. Unlike
evolution gravity is actually witnessed.
Even an idiot can see that you're not a clone of your single parent.
Unlike gods, evolution is actually seen visually.
No one has actually
witnessed one species over time become a different species.
It's been observed hundreds of times, at least.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html> and
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html> are some examples.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 11:58:58 PM |
|
|
Even an idiot can see that you're not a clone of your single parent.
I try to keep an open mind on some of these posters where the family
tree only has one branch.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
05 Aug 2007 12:44:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:34:44 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:13 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is:
"Do you believe in gravity?" Or "Do you believe in water?"
What exactly does this mean. Even an idiot can actually know
if he slips gravity will cause him to fall and get hurt.
How do you know it is gravity, and not the ground sucking you?
How do you know it is gravity, and not your god pushing you?
Explain how you know it is gravity, describe it.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
05 Aug 2007 07:38:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:44:09 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:34:44 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:13 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is:
"Do you believe in gravity?" Or "Do you believe in water?"
What exactly does this mean. Even an idiot can actually know
if he slips gravity will cause him to fall and get hurt.
How do you know it is gravity, and not the ground sucking you?
How do you know it is gravity, and not your god pushing you?
Explain how you know it is gravity, describe it.
Of course we know a lot more about allele change than we know about
mutual attraction of masses, but they swear by gravity and laugh at
evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
05 Aug 2007 07:42:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:38:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:44:09 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:34:44 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:13 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is:
"Do you believe in gravity?" Or "Do you believe in water?"
What exactly does this mean. Even an idiot can actually know
if he slips gravity will cause him to fall and get hurt.
How do you know it is gravity, and not the ground sucking you?
How do you know it is gravity, and not your god pushing you?
Explain how you know it is gravity, describe it.
Of course we know a lot more about allele change than we know about
mutual attraction of masses, but they swear by gravity and laugh at
evolution.
But it always seems to me, to be a rather forced, or strained,
laughter.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
06 Aug 2007 07:38:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:42:42 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:38:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Of course we know a lot more about allele change than we know about
mutual attraction of masses, but they swear by gravity and laugh at
evolution.
But it always seems to me, to be a rather forced, or strained,
laughter.
It sounds more maniacal to me - the laughter of maniacs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
06 Aug 2007 07:26:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:38:43 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:42:42 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:38:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Of course we know a lot more about allele change than we know about
mutual attraction of masses, but they swear by gravity and laugh at
evolution.
But it always seems to me, to be a rather forced, or strained,
laughter.
It sounds more maniacal to me - the laughter of maniacs.
That too.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 11:52:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:34:44 -0400, in alt.atheism , Danwood
<noreply@noreply.com> in <46B08BF4.6040302@noreply.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:13 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is:
"Do you believe in gravity?" Or "Do you believe in water?"
What exactly does this mean. Even an idiot can actually know
if he slips gravity will cause him to fall and get hurt. Unlike
evolution gravity is actually witnessed. No one has actually
witnessed one species over time become a different species.
Sure they have.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common
Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Before you start commenting on how (anti-)religious bias affected
Darwin you might consider how bias and ignorance has affecter your
views.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
06 Aug 2007 11:09:15 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:34:44 -0400, in alt.atheism , Danwood
<noreply@noreply.com> in <46B08BF4.6040302@noreply.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:13 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is:
"Do you believe in gravity?" Or "Do you believe in water?"
What exactly does this mean. Even an idiot can actually know
if he slips gravity will cause him to fall and get hurt. Unlike
evolution gravity is actually witnessed. No one has actually
witnessed one species over time become a different species.
Sure they have.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common
Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Before you start commenting on how (anti-)religious bias affected
Darwin you might consider how bias and ignorance has affecter your
views.
Ok. I've said it before: none of my opinions on this subject are set in
stone. In the two or so years I actually became somewhat interest in
this topic I have gone back and forth regarding the validity of
evolution. Religion is not a big part of my life, so in a real sense
it is sidelined. I'm not a church goer except weddings, funerals
occasionally Easter or Christmas. Neither am I a bible reader.
But religion is somehow often thrown up at me as if it is in some
way the basis for all of my views. Which is false.
I really don't think I'm biased. Ignorant: I don't deny that I don't
know as much as I would like. So part of my reasoning for coming to
talk origins and talk creationism was to learn something about the
topic. But for a great many on both sides, a difference of opinion
is not tolerated. What little I know I found on the net.
I read through the three references you offered and if hybridization
is a new species, which is an almost instant event. This is speciation.
These were two species of the same family or genus that were able to
breed or cross-pollinate and some have fertile offspring. I do not
have a problem with this.
To be sure one does not see dogs breeding and have cats, as was
touched on in one of you refs. This is also the case with gravity.
The consequences of falling is something easily observed. But this
is not the case with descent from a common ancestor that lived
billions of years ago. So for this reason it's a bogus comparison-
in my opinion.
Thank you,
Danwood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
06 Aug 2007 08:21:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:09:15 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Ok. I've said it before: none of my opinions on this subject are set in
stone. In the two or so years I actually became somewhat interest in
this topic I have gone back and forth regarding the validity of
evolution.
Evolution is the word used to describe the OBSERVED FACT that allele
frequencies change in breeding populations over time. It's as "valid"
as any other word used to describe any other observation. Things fall
- we call that "gravity". Have you "gone back and forth regarding the
validity of" gravity?
I read through the three references you offered and if hybridization
is a new species, which is an almost instant event. This is speciation.
If the two forms can't interbreed, they're two species - since that's
one of the criteria by which taxonomists classify things.
To be sure one does not see dogs breeding and have cats
That would be a hybrid between families, which is just about
impossible.
This is also the case with gravity.
The consequences of falling is something easily observed. But this
is not the case with descent from a common ancestor that lived
billions of years ago.
Falling isn't easily observed if you live in a plastic bubble in
interstellar space, where "gravity" is an infinitesimal fraction of
1G.
Common descent isn't easily observed by those not trained in the
fields in which knowledge is required to see common descent.
It's the same thing - if your particular circumstances (location,
education) keep you from seeing something, you won't see it. How many
people can "see" if a program is using a particular API, just by using
the program? That doesn't mean that it can't be "seen" by someone who
writes software and uses that API all the time.
Can you spot a horse hoof mark on stony ground? A good tracker in
that kind of country can. That it isn't easily observed by YOU
doesn't mean that it's not there.
There are thousands of similar examples of things not readily apparent
to one that are painfully obvious to another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
07 Aug 2007 09:48:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:21:04 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <cmhfb39kbkgra70noctbe3k6nt5t8fss3a@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:09:15 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Ok. I've said it before: none of my opinions on this subject are set in
stone. In the two or so years I actually became somewhat interest in
this topic I have gone back and forth regarding the validity of
evolution.
Evolution is the word used to describe the OBSERVED FACT that allele
frequencies change in breeding populations over time. It's as "valid"
as any other word used to describe any other observation. Things fall
- we call that "gravity". Have you "gone back and forth regarding the
validity of" gravity?
Evolution also refers to the observed fact of speciation via descent
with modification and common descent. And those are at least as well
observed than the orbit of Pluto.
I read through the three references you offered and if hybridization
is a new species, which is an almost instant event. This is speciation.
If the two forms can't interbreed, they're two species - since that's
one of the criteria by which taxonomists classify things.
For sexual species, sort of. There are lots of species concepts and
the appropriate one depends on what organisms we are looking at. The
Theory of Evolution, though, predicts that kind of diversity.
[snip]
Common descent isn't easily observed by those not trained in the
fields in which knowledge is required to see common descent.
It's the same thing - if your particular circumstances (location,
education) keep you from seeing something, you won't see it. How many
people can "see" if a program is using a particular API, just by using
the program? That doesn't mean that it can't be "seen" by someone who
writes software and uses that API all the time.
Can you spot a horse hoof mark on stony ground? A good tracker in
that kind of country can. That it isn't easily observed by YOU
doesn't mean that it's not there.
There are thousands of similar examples of things not readily apparent
to one that are painfully obvious to another.
I left that in because it is an important well said point.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 12:56:48 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:21:04 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <cmhfb39kbkgra70noctbe3k6nt5t8fss3a@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:09:15 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Ok. I've said it before: none of my opinions on this subject are set in
stone. In the two or so years I actually became somewhat interest in
this topic I have gone back and forth regarding the validity of
evolution.
Evolution is the word used to describe the OBSERVED FACT that allele
frequencies change in breeding populations over time. It's as "valid"
as any other word used to describe any other observation. Things fall
- we call that "gravity". Have you "gone back and forth regarding the
validity of" gravity?
Evolution also refers to the observed fact of speciation via descent
with modification and common descent. And those are at least as well
observed than the orbit of Pluto.
I read through the three references you offered and if hybridization
is a new species, which is an almost instant event. This is speciation.
If the two forms can't interbreed, they're two species - since that's
one of the criteria by which taxonomists classify things.
For sexual species, sort of. There are lots of species concepts and
the appropriate one depends on what organisms we are looking at. The
Theory of Evolution, though, predicts that kind of diversity.
[snip]
Common descent isn't easily observed by those not trained in the
fields in which knowledge is required to see common descent.
It's the same thing - if your particular circumstances (location,
education) keep you from seeing something, you won't see it. How many
people can "see" if a program is using a particular API, just by using
the program? That doesn't mean that it can't be "seen" by someone who
writes software and uses that API all the time.
Can you spot a horse hoof mark on stony ground? A good tracker in
that kind of country can. That it isn't easily observed by YOU
doesn't mean that it's not there.
There are thousands of similar examples of things not readily apparent
to one that are painfully obvious to another.
I left that in because it is an important well said point.
I am no anti evolutionist. But, I admit when I came to talk creationism
a few months ago, I was more inclined towards evolution than I am at
present. What affected my attitude was not so much about evolution per
se, as about the evolutionist I find on these NGs. I've been branded
a fundy, a creationist etc.etc.etc. as if that is someone that has
no rights and something that must be eradicated at any cost.
But, if this is the mindset that evolution creates in some people, I
consider this calamitous. It's frightening, They seem to have so much
animosity, hostility and intolerance towards those who entertain
different views from theirs. I would hope this anti-social behavior
does not translate in their day to day lives.
Danwood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 02:07:55 PM |
|
|
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:46BB5560.9020009@noreply.com...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:21:04 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <cmhfb39kbkgra70noctbe3k6nt5t8fss3a@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:09:15 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Ok. I've said it before: none of my opinions on this subject are set in
stone. In the two or so years I actually became somewhat interest in
this topic I have gone back and forth regarding the validity of
evolution.
Evolution is the word used to describe the OBSERVED FACT that allele
frequencies change in breeding populations over time. It's as "valid"
as any other word used to describe any other observation. Things fall
- we call that "gravity". Have you "gone back and forth regarding the
validity of" gravity?
Evolution also refers to the observed fact of speciation via descent
with modification and common descent. And those are at least as well
observed than the orbit of Pluto.
I read through the three references you offered and if hybridization
is a new species, which is an almost instant event. This is speciation.
If the two forms can't interbreed, they're two species - since that's
one of the criteria by which taxonomists classify things.
For sexual species, sort of. There are lots of species concepts and
the appropriate one depends on what organisms we are looking at. The
Theory of Evolution, though, predicts that kind of diversity.
[snip]
Common descent isn't easily observed by those not trained in the
fields in which knowledge is required to see common descent.
It's the same thing - if your particular circumstances (location,
education) keep you from seeing something, you won't see it. How many
people can "see" if a program is using a particular API, just by using
the program? That doesn't mean that it can't be "seen" by someone who
writes software and uses that API all the time.
Can you spot a horse hoof mark on stony ground? A good tracker in
that kind of country can. That it isn't easily observed by YOU
doesn't mean that it's not there.
There are thousands of similar examples of things not readily apparent
to one that are painfully obvious to another.
I left that in because it is an important well said point.
I am no anti evolutionist. But, I admit when I came to talk creationism a
few months ago, I was more inclined towards evolution than I am at
present. What affected my attitude was not so much about evolution per
se, as about the evolutionist I find on these NGs. I've been branded
a fundy, a creationist etc.etc.etc. as if that is someone that has
no rights and something that must be eradicated at any cost.
But, if this is the mindset that evolution creates in some people, I
consider this calamitous. It's frightening, They seem to have so much
animosity, hostility and intolerance towards those who entertain different
views from theirs. I would hope this anti-social behavior
does not translate in their day to day lives.
Danwood
What an illogical conclusion, if that is true, which I doubt. Think about
it, if you are able. You enter a group where people are debating the pros
and cons of gravity. You are treated badly by the supporters of gravity so
you base your opinion as to the existence of gravity on the reception you
received in this group. Wow Deadwood, you are in worse shape than I thought.
In your 'poor widdle me' narrative you forgot to say that this in not the
first time you have entered this group and that when you left the last time
you left behind your reputation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pico" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 02:58:53 PM |
|
|
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
But, if this is the mindset that evolution creates in some people, I
consider this calamitous. It's frightening, They seem to have so much
animosity, hostility and intolerance towards those who entertain different
views from theirs. I would hope this anti-social behavior
does not translate in their day to day lives.
What is intimidating is to discover the implicit prejudices we have in our
everyday cognition. Most of it is unavailable to correction at the typical
'training' level.
Take the test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 08:34:27 PM |
|
|
Danwood wrote:
I am no anti evolutionist. But, I admit when I came to talk creationism
a few months ago, I was more inclined towards evolution than I am at
present. What affected my attitude was not so much about evolution per
se, as about the evolutionist I find on these NGs. I've been branded
a fundy, a creationist etc.etc.etc. as if that is someone that has
no rights and something that must be eradicated at any cost.
But, if this is the mindset that evolution creates in some people, I
consider this calamitous. It's frightening, They seem to have so much
animosity, hostility and intolerance towards those who entertain
different views from theirs. I would hope this anti-social behavior
does not translate in their day to day lives.
Welcome to the Jungle!
Hitchhikers guide to the Usenet:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 09:52:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:56:48 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
But, if this is the mindset that evolution creates in some people, I
consider this calamitous. It's frightening, They seem to have so much
animosity, hostility and intolerance towards those who entertain
different views from theirs.
So do you think flat-Earthers should be treated with respect? After
all, it's an alternate theory.
Evolution OCCURS. Having a different view is like having the view
that water is never wet. It's "an alternate theory", but not one that
sane people entertain.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 04:31:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:56:48 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
I am no anti evolutionist. But, I admit when I came to talk creationism
a few months ago, I was more inclined towards evolution than I am at
present. What affected my attitude was not so much about evolution per
se, as about the evolutionist I find on these NGs. I've been branded
a fundy, a creationist etc.etc.etc. as if that is someone that has
no rights and something that must be eradicated at any cost.
But, if this is the mindset that evolution creates in some people, I
consider this calamitous. It's frightening, They seem to have so much
animosity, hostility and intolerance towards those who entertain
different views from theirs. I would hope this anti-social behavior
does not translate in their day to day lives.
I have read some feeble crap, some poor excuses, but that one: "I do
not believe evolution, because some people who do believe it, are not
nice to me"...
Hoo Boy.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 03:34:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:56:48 -0400, in alt.atheism , Danwood
<noreply@noreply.com> in <46BB5560.9020009@noreply.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:21:04 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <cmhfb39kbkgra70noctbe3k6nt5t8fss3a@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:09:15 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Ok. I've said it before: none of my opinions on this subject are set in
stone. In the two or so years I actually became somewhat interest in
this topic I have gone back and forth regarding the validity of
evolution.
Evolution is the word used to describe the OBSERVED FACT that allele
frequencies change in breeding populations over time. It's as "valid"
as any other word used to describe any other observation. Things fall
- we call that "gravity". Have you "gone back and forth regarding the
validity of" gravity?
Evolution also refers to the observed fact of speciation via descent
with modification and common descent. And those are at least as well
observed than the orbit of Pluto.
I read through the three references you offered and if hybridization
is a new species, which is an almost instant event. This is speciation.
If the two forms can't interbreed, they're two species - since that's
one of the criteria by which taxonomists classify things.
For sexual species, sort of. There are lots of species concepts and
the appropriate one depends on what organisms we are looking at. The
Theory of Evolution, though, predicts that kind of diversity.
[snip]
Common descent isn't easily observed by those not trained in the
fields in which knowledge is required to see common descent.
It's the same thing - if your particular circumstances (location,
education) keep you from seeing something, you won't see it. How many
people can "see" if a program is using a particular API, just by using
the program? That doesn't mean that it can't be "seen" by someone who
writes software and uses that API all the time.
Can you spot a horse hoof mark on stony ground? A good tracker in
that kind of country can. That it isn't easily observed by YOU
doesn't mean that it's not there.
There are thousands of similar examples of things not readily apparent
to one that are painfully obvious to another.
I left that in because it is an important well said point.
I am no anti evolutionist. But, I admit when I came to talk creationism
a few months ago,
Why in the world would you go to talk.creationism regarding evolution?
Read some actual science books. Or, at the very least, go to
talk.origins which has some reasonable scientific help available.
I was more inclined towards evolution than I am at
present. What affected my attitude was not so much about evolution per
se, as about the evolutionist I find on these NGs.
Wow, you found nasty people on the Usenet? What a surprise.
I've been branded
a fundy, a creationist etc.etc.etc. as if that is someone that has
no rights and something that must be eradicated at any cost.
Yeah, people are quick on the draw here. The horses here are
creationists, the zebras are the people who are honestly asking
questions. Well, I have answered your questions, what is your
*scientific* problem?
But, if this is the mindset that evolution creates in some people,
No, it is Usenet.
I
consider this calamitous. It's frightening, They seem to have so much
animosity, hostility and intolerance towards those who entertain
different views from theirs. I would hope this anti-social behavior
does not translate in their day to day lives.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 04:33:43 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:56:48 -0400, in alt.atheism , Danwood
<noreply@noreply.com> in <46BB5560.9020009@noreply.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:21:04 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <cmhfb39kbkgra70noctbe3k6nt5t8fss3a@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:09:15 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Ok. I've said it before: none of my opinions on this subject are set in
stone. In the two or so years I actually became somewhat interest in
this topic I have gone back and forth regarding the validity of
evolution.
Evolution is the word used to describe the OBSERVED FACT that allele
frequencies change in breeding populations over time. It's as "valid"
as any other word used to describe any other observation. Things fall
- we call that "gravity". Have you "gone back and forth regarding the
validity of" gravity?
Evolution also refers to the observed fact of speciation via descent
with modification and common descent. And those are at least as well
observed than the orbit of Pluto.
I read through the three references you offered and if hybridization
is a new species, which is an almost instant event. This is speciation.
If the two forms can't interbreed, they're two species - since that's
one of the criteria by which taxonomists classify things.
For sexual species, sort of. There are lots of species concepts and
the appropriate one depends on what organisms we are looking at. The
Theory of Evolution, though, predicts that kind of diversity.
[snip]
Common descent isn't easily observed by those not trained in the
fields in which knowledge is required to see common descent.
It's the same thing - if your particular circumstances (location,
education) keep you from seeing something, you won't see it. How many
people can "see" if a program is using a particular API, just by using
the program? That doesn't mean that it can't be "seen" by someone who
writes software and uses that API all the time.
Can you spot a horse hoof mark on stony ground? A good tracker in
that kind of country can. That it isn't easily observed by YOU
doesn't mean that it's not there.
There are thousands of similar examples of things not readily apparent
to one that are painfully obvious to another.
I left that in because it is an important well said point.
I am no anti evolutionist. But, I admit when I came to talk creationism
a few months ago,
Why in the world would you go to talk.creationism regarding evolution?
That's what I found talk creationism is about.
Read some actual science books. Or, at the very least, go to
talk.origins which has some reasonable scientific help available.
I was more inclined towards evolution than I am at
present. What affected my attitude was not so much about evolution per
se, as about the evolutionist I find on these NGs.
Wow, you found nasty people on the Usenet? What a surprise.
It's cowardly, but easy to hide behind anonymity, such as these NGs
provide. But I suspect the true character of some individuals
come out under these circumstances.
I've been branded
a fundy, a creationist etc.etc.etc. as if that is someone that has
no rights and something that must be eradicated at any cost.
Yeah, people are quick on the draw here. The horses here are
creationists, the zebras are the people who are honestly asking
questions. Well, I have answered your questions, what is your
*scientific* problem?
But, if this is the mindset that evolution creates in some people,
No, it is Usenet.
I
consider this calamitous. It's frightening, They seem to have so much
animosity, hostility and intolerance towards those who entertain
different views from theirs. I would hope this anti-social behavior
does not translate in their day to day lives.
So you agree with the above statement?
BTW this may be my last post for at least a week.
I am 1/3 owner of a condo at Litchfield beach, near
Myrtle Beach.
So, I'm taking my family for a week at the beach.
Regards,
Danwood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 09:54:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:33:43 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
BTW this may be my last post for at least a week.
I am 1/3 owner of a condo at Litchfield beach, near
Myrtle Beach.
So, I'm taking my family for a week at the beach.
Laptop.
Remote Desktop (assuming Windows).
Your computer away from the computer.
(Unless you're not addicted, of course.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
18 Aug 2007 03:06:25 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:33:43 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
BTW this may be my last post for at least a week.
I am 1/3 owner of a condo at Litchfield beach, near
Myrtle Beach.
So, I'm taking my family for a week at the beach.
Laptop.
Remote Desktop (assuming Windows).
Your computer away from the computer.
(Unless you're not addicted, of course.)
I'm back. You are right, I'm not addicted.
This discussions, for me are strictly entertainment.
Danwood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
18 Aug 2007 06:12:38 PM |
|
|
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:46C75141.8000009@noreply.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:33:43 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
BTW this may be my last post for at least a week.
I am 1/3 owner of a condo at Litchfield beach, near
Myrtle Beach.
So, I'm taking my family for a week at the beach.
Laptop.
Remote Desktop (assuming Windows).
Your computer away from the computer.
(Unless you're not addicted, of course.)
I'm back. You are right, I'm not addicted.
This discussions, for me are strictly entertainment.
Danwood
Deadwood,
Damn, I was hoping you would meet your demise while gone but alas.....it
doesn't appear to have happened.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
18 Aug 2007 07:22:00 PM |
|
|
Ralph wrote:
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:46C75141.8000009@noreply.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:33:43 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
BTW this may be my last post for at least a week.
I am 1/3 owner of a condo at Litchfield beach, near
Myrtle Beach.
So, I'm taking my family for a week at the beach.
Laptop.
Remote Desktop (assuming Windows).
Your computer away from the computer.
(Unless you're not addicted, of course.)
I'm back. You are right, I'm not addicted.
This discussions, for me are strictly entertainment.
Danwood
Deadwood,
Damn, I was hoping you would meet your demise while gone but alas.....it
doesn't appear to have happened.
I hope you are not serious. But then I have no way of knowing.
Danwood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
21 Aug 2007 01:52:06 PM |
|
|
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:46C78D28.608@noreply.com...
Ralph wrote:
"Danwood" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:46C75141.8000009@noreply.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:33:43 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
BTW this may be my last post for at least a week.
I am 1/3 owner of a condo at Litchfield beach, near
Myrtle Beach.
So, I'm taking my family for a week at the beach.
Laptop.
Remote Desktop (assuming Windows).
Your computer away from the computer.
(Unless you're not addicted, of course.)
I'm back. You are right, I'm not addicted.
This discussions, for me are strictly entertainment.
Danwood
Deadwood,
Damn, I was hoping you would meet your demise while gone but alas.....it
doesn't appear to have happened.
I hope you are not serious. But then I have no way of knowing.
Danwood
Yes, I believe there is a God with all my heart, mind and soul.
I have no need to prove anything to someone who crossposts
to Christian Newsgroups for the purpose of flaming and denouncing
that which he can never understand.
Dan Wood
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
18 Aug 2007 07:16:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:33:43 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
BTW this may be my last post for at least a week.
I am 1/3 owner of a condo at Litchfield beach, near
Myrtle Beach.
So, I'm taking my family for a week at the beach.
Laptop.
Remote Desktop (assuming Windows).
Your computer away from the computer.
(Unless you're not addicted, of course.)
I'm back. You are right, I'm not addicted.
This discussions, for me are strictly entertainment.
Danwood
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
09 Aug 2007 10:28:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:54:48 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <0pknb3h4m38po4h5m1a8ab1rdvc6070oov@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:33:43 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
BTW this may be my last post for at least a week.
I am 1/3 owner of a condo at Litchfield beach, near
Myrtle Beach.
So, I'm taking my family for a week at the beach.
Laptop.
Remote Desktop (assuming Windows).
Your computer away from the computer.
(Unless you're not addicted, of course.)
LOL.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
