| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"darth_versive" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2004 01:41:42 PM |
| Object: |
Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
DV
.
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 12:21:10 AM |
|
|
catshark wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:44:00 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031903E.3A9D3567@worldnet.att.net>:
The Sophist wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Stop whining and puling and produce some hard evidence
of one species changing into another.
I assume you've been sent links like this before, but this is why people
get annoyed at this question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Been there, done that... no sale.
- Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said
that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all
the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on
Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)
Miles?
He's getting them from here:
Is that some kind of great revelation? Are you now sufficiently
armored against the badmen?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 06:16:02 AM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4031B425.EB443589@worldnet.att.net...
catshark wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:44:00 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031903E.3A9D3567@worldnet.att.net>:
The Sophist wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Stop whining and puling and produce some hard evidence
of one species changing into another.
I assume you've been sent links like this before, but this is why
people
get annoyed at this question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Been there, done that... no sale.
- Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said
that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all
the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on
Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)
Miles?
He's getting them from here:
Is that some kind of great revelation? Are you now sufficiently
armored against the badmen?
Lying by omission is good
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 11:21:51 AM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4031B425.EB443589@worldnet.att.net...
catshark wrote:
He's getting them from here:
Is that some kind of great revelation? Are you now sufficiently
armored against the badmen?
Lying by omission is good
Denial is good.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 07:43:05 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031B425.EB443589@worldnet.att.net>:
catshark wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:44:00 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031903E.3A9D3567@worldnet.att.net>:
The Sophist wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Stop whining and puling and produce some hard evidence
of one species changing into another.
I assume you've been sent links like this before, but this is why people
get annoyed at this question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Been there, done that... no sale.
- Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said
that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all
the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on
Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)
Miles?
He's getting them from here:
Is that some kind of great revelation? Are you now sufficiently
armored against the badmen?
You are the one who is randomly posting dishonest quotes. Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 11:24:24 AM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031B425.EB443589@worldnet.att.net>:
catshark wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:44:00 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031903E.3A9D3567@worldnet.att.net>:
The Sophist wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Stop whining and puling and produce some hard evidence
of one species changing into another.
I assume you've been sent links like this before, but this is why people
get annoyed at this question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Been there, done that... no sale.
- Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said
that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all
the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on
Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)
Miles?
He's getting them from here:
Is that some kind of great revelation? Are you now sufficiently
armored against the badmen?
You are the one who is randomly posting dishonest quotes. Why?
"Dishonest quotes"?...
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 03:29:37 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<40324FB4.992181A@worldnet.att.net>:
David Jensen wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031B425.EB443589@worldnet.att.net>:
catshark wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:44:00 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031903E.3A9D3567@worldnet.att.net>:
The Sophist wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Stop whining and puling and produce some hard evidence
of one species changing into another.
I assume you've been sent links like this before, but this is why people
get annoyed at this question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Been there, done that... no sale.
- Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said
that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all
the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on
Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)
Miles?
He's getting them from here:
Is that some kind of great revelation? Are you now sufficiently
armored against the badmen?
You are the one who is randomly posting dishonest quotes. Why?
"Dishonest quotes"?...
Yes. The quote miners who fancy that these misleading and out of context
quotes somehow are support for creationism or, at least, against
evolution, are either deluding themselves or are being intentionally
dishonest. You have had fair warning that these quotes are not in
context, so ignorance is no longer a valid defence for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 04:55:36 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<40324FB4.992181A@worldnet.att.net>:
David Jensen wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031B425.EB443589@worldnet.att.net>:
catshark wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:44:00 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031903E.3A9D3567@worldnet.att.net>:
The Sophist wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Stop whining and puling and produce some hard evidence
of one species changing into another.
I assume you've been sent links like this before, but this is why people
get annoyed at this question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Been there, done that... no sale.
- Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said
that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all
the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on
Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)
Miles?
He's getting them from here:
Is that some kind of great revelation? Are you now sufficiently
armored against the badmen?
You are the one who is randomly posting dishonest quotes. Why?
"Dishonest quotes"?...
Yes. The quote miners who fancy that these misleading and out of context
quotes somehow are support for creationism or, at least, against
evolution, are either deluding themselves or are being intentionally
dishonest. You have had fair warning that these quotes are not in
context, so ignorance is no longer a valid defence for you.
Fair warning from evolutionist ideologues?... you must be joking.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Theobald" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 05:27:53 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40324FB4.992181A@worldnet.att.net>...
David Jensen wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031B425.EB443589@worldnet.att.net>:
catshark wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:44:00 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<4031903E.3A9D3567@worldnet.att.net>:
The Sophist wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Stop whining and puling and produce some hard evidence
of one species changing into another.
I assume you've been sent links like this before, but this is why people
get annoyed at this question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Been there, done that... no sale.
- Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said
that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all
the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on
Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)
Miles?
He's getting them from here:
Is that some kind of great revelation? Are you now sufficiently
armored against the badmen?
You are the one who is randomly posting dishonest quotes. Why?
"Dishonest quotes"?...
Yes. You posted an out-of-context quote from Niles Eldredge. As
evidenced in the thread shown above, you intended that Eldredge quote
to be some sort of argument against "one species changing into
another." By posting the quote in that manner, and out-of-context, and
altered from the original, you intended for the quote to be taken as
meaning something that Eldredge did not mean. That is, of course,
dishonest. It is called lying. Eldredge certainly accepts that species
have changed into others during evolution, and he agrees that the
scientific evidence indicates that natural selection and speciation
are the main players in evolution. He contests none of that in that
pseudo-quote you gave.
<quote>
I have no problem with natural selection being the essential engine
for the change. The question is, who's driving the car? Who's
navigating through the streets of earth history? It seems to me the
engine is basically guided by these extraneous physical environmental
effects.
.....
My position is the same as Darwin's on this: Evolution works through
processes such as natural selection and speciation. If someone wanted
to say that 'life started three and a half billion years ago with
bacteria, then God saw to it, using natural processes such as
evolution, that other things would come along, including the Cambrian
explosion', I would have absolutely no problem with that. But not if
he says that 'Darwin said evolution is slow and gradual; Eldredge and
Gould say it proceeds by fits and starts. Ergo Eldredge and Gould
don't believe in evolution.'
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period. Though we can argue about mechanisms, I have
no doubt that selection and speciation are the heart and soul of the
evolutionary process.
<end quote>
Niles Eldredge, interview in the summer of 1998
http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/sum98/niles.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 07:12:54 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 07:31:54 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 08:37:02 PM |
|
|
In article <4032C1F3.71E7A9FF@worldnet.att.net>,
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
Naah. That's the idea of universal common descent. "Evolution" would
include that, but minimally evolution is just the idea that the
genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over generations.
Common descent, on the other hand, is the idea that groups of related
species are descended from common ancestral species. All of these are
well supported by the evidence, but they're pretty clearly separable.
"Evolution" and common descent would still be very well supported
even if we had found some organisms that didn't descend from any
common ancestor shared with all other organisms. There could have
been two or more separate "kinds" of life without that being any
problem for the concept of "evolution"; it so happened that no
evidence is found for any such completely separate origins of life
from non-life.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
23 Feb 2004 07:44:55 PM |
|
|
In article <c0uj9u$7ip$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>,
(mel turner) wrote:
In article <4032C1F3.71E7A9FF@worldnet.att.net>,
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
Naah. That's the idea of universal common descent. "Evolution" would
include that, but minimally evolution is just the idea that the
genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over generations.
Common descent, on the other hand, is the idea that groups of related
species are descended from common ancestral species. All of these are
well supported by the evidence, but they're pretty clearly separable.
"Evolution" and common descent would still be very well supported
even if we had found some organisms that didn't descend from any
common ancestor shared with all other organisms. There could have
been two or more separate "kinds" of life without that being any
problem for the concept of "evolution"; it so happened that no
evidence is found for any such completely separate origins of life
from non-life.
cheers
AFAIK, universal common descent is still questionable, being as LUCY is
undetermined and probably undeterminable, and the early history of life
is unknown.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
24 Feb 2004 10:40:02 AM |
|
|
In article <proto-D70E49.20490223022004@reader2.panix.com>,
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
In article <c0uj9u$7ip$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>,
mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
In article <4032C1F3.71E7A9FF@worldnet.att.net>,
mosestorah@worldnet.att.net
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
Naah. That's the idea of universal common descent. "Evolution" would
include that, but minimally evolution is just the idea that the
genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over generations.
Common descent, on the other hand, is the idea that groups of related
species are descended from common ancestral species. All of these are
well supported by the evidence, but they're pretty clearly separable.
"Evolution" and common descent would still be very well supported
even if we had found some organisms that didn't descend from any
common ancestor shared with all other organisms. There could have
been two or more separate "kinds" of life without that being any
problem for the concept of "evolution"; it so happened that no
evidence is found for any such completely separate origins of life
from non-life.
cheers
AFAIK, universal common descent is still questionable, being as LUCY is
undetermined and probably undeterminable, and the early history of life
is unknown.
Pardon, I meant LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestoress).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
23 Feb 2004 09:34:08 PM |
|
|
In article <proto-D70E49.20490223022004@reader2.panix.com>,
[Walter Bushell] wrote...
In article <c0uj9u$7ip$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>,
mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
In article <4032C1F3.71E7A9FF@worldnet.att.net>,
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
Naah. That's the idea of universal common descent. "Evolution" would
include that, but minimally evolution is just the idea that the
genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over generations.
Common descent, on the other hand, is the idea that groups of related
species are descended from common ancestral species. All of these are
well supported by the evidence, but they're pretty clearly separable.
"Evolution" and common descent would still be very well supported
even if we had found some organisms that didn't descend from any
common ancestor shared with all other organisms. There could have
been two or more separate "kinds" of life without that being any
problem for the concept of "evolution"; it so happened that no
evidence is found for any such completely separate origins of life
from non-life.
AFAIK, universal common descent is still questionable, being as LUCY is
undetermined and probably undeterminable,
I don't understand this part of your comment. Do you refer to the
famous hominid fossil "Lucy"? If so, the reference makes no sense
to me. Or is "LUCY" some acronym of which I'm unaware, that is
related to orgin-of-life issues?
and the early history of life is unknown.
Largely true, but I'd submit that the patterns of shared features
among all cellular life [that is, bacteria, archaea, and
eukaryotes] can be seen as showing evidence for their common ancestry.
That won't tell us much if anything about what would have preceded the
last common ancestor of all life, but that wasn't the question here.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
24 Feb 2004 10:43:35 AM |
|
|
In article <c1eguo$tvc$2@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>,
(mel turner) wrote:
In article <proto-D70E49.20490223022004@reader2.panix.com>,
[Walter Bushell] wrote...
In article <c0uj9u$7ip$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>,
(mel turner) wrote:
In article <4032C1F3.71E7A9FF@worldnet.att.net>,
mosestorah@worldnet.att.net
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
Naah. That's the idea of universal common descent. "Evolution" would
include that, but minimally evolution is just the idea that the
genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over generations.
Common descent, on the other hand, is the idea that groups of related
species are descended from common ancestral species. All of these are
well supported by the evidence, but they're pretty clearly separable.
"Evolution" and common descent would still be very well supported
even if we had found some organisms that didn't descend from any
common ancestor shared with all other organisms. There could have
been two or more separate "kinds" of life without that being any
problem for the concept of "evolution"; it so happened that no
evidence is found for any such completely separate origins of life
from non-life.
AFAIK, universal common descent is still questionable, being as LUCY is
undetermined and probably undeterminable,
I don't understand this part of your comment. Do you refer to the
famous hominid fossil "Lucy"? If so, the reference makes no sense
to me. Or is "LUCY" some acronym of which I'm unaware, that is
related to orgin-of-life issues?
and the early history of life is unknown.
Largely true, but I'd submit that the patterns of shared features
among all cellular life [that is, bacteria, archaea, and
eukaryotes] can be seen as showing evidence for their common ancestry.
That won't tell us much if anything about what would have preceded the
last common ancestor of all life, but that wasn't the question here.
cheers
Pardon, I meant LUCA -- Last Universal Common Ancestress; I can trace my
ancestry back to a golb of jelly floating in the primortal ocean. hence
my family pride is something inconceivable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Moran" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
24 Feb 2004 12:01:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:34:08 +0000 (UTC),
mel turner <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
In article <proto-D70E49.20490223022004@reader2.panix.com>,
proto@panix.com [Walter Bushell] wrote...
[snip]
AFAIK, universal common descent is still questionable, being as LUCY is
undetermined and probably undeterminable,
I don't understand this part of your comment. Do you refer to the
famous hominid fossil "Lucy"? If so, the reference makes no sense
to me. Or is "LUCY" some acronym of which I'm unaware, that is
related to orgin-of-life issues?
He may be referring to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor).
Larry Moran
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
28 Feb 2004 05:55:30 PM |
|
|
In article <slrnc3n3o8.smg.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca [Larry Moran] wrote...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:34:08 +0000 (UTC),
mel turner <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
In article <proto-D70E49.20490223022004@reader2.panix.com>,
proto@panix.com [Walter Bushell] wrote...
[snip]
AFAIK, universal common descent is still questionable, being as LUCY is
undetermined and probably undeterminable,
I don't understand this part of your comment. Do you refer to the
famous hominid fossil "Lucy"? If so, the reference makes no sense
to me. Or is "LUCY" some acronym of which I'm unaware, that is
related to orgin-of-life issues?
He may be referring to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor).
Yes, thanks to all of you for the clarifications. In my defense,
I had been doing an unintentional prolonged experiment on the
neurology of caffeine-deprivation, and was unable to figure it
out myself...
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
28 Feb 2004 09:49:35 PM |
|
|
mel turner <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
In article <slrnc3n3o8.smg.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca [Larry Moran] wrote...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:34:08 +0000 (UTC),
mel turner <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
In article <proto-D70E49.20490223022004@reader2.panix.com>,
proto@panix.com [Walter Bushell] wrote...
[snip]
AFAIK, universal common descent is still questionable, being as LUCY is
undetermined and probably undeterminable,
I don't understand this part of your comment. Do you refer to the
famous hominid fossil "Lucy"? If so, the reference makes no sense
to me. Or is "LUCY" some acronym of which I'm unaware, that is
related to orgin-of-life issues?
He may be referring to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor).
Yes, thanks to all of you for the clarifications. In my defense,
I had been doing an unintentional prolonged experiment on the
neurology of caffeine-deprivation, and was unable to figure it
out myself...
cheers
Not valid without a control. As it happens, I provide one - caffeine
saturation at or near maximum, and I figured it out.
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louann Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
23 Feb 2004 10:10:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:44:55 +0000 (UTC), Walter Bushell
<proto@panix.com> wrote:
AFAIK, universal common descent is still questionable, being as LUCY is
undetermined and probably undeterminable, and the early history of life
is unknown.
I'm pretty sure that was a typo for LUCA, Latest Universal Common
Ancestor.
Louann "she lives on the seventh floor" Miller
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 11:00:28 AM |
|
|
mel turner wrote:
In article <4032C1F3.71E7A9FF@worldnet.att.net>,
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
Naah. That's the idea of universal common descent. "Evolution" would
include that, but minimally evolution is just the idea that the
genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over generations.
Common descent, on the other hand, is the idea that groups of related
species are descended from common ancestral species. All of these are
well supported by the evidence, but they're pretty clearly separable.
"Evolution" and common descent would still be very well supported
even if we had found some organisms that didn't descend from any
common ancestor shared with all other organisms. There could have
been two or more separate "kinds" of life without that being any
problem for the concept of "evolution"; it so happened that no
evidence is found for any such completely separate origins of life
from non-life.
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning. For evolution "species" begins in primordial
slime, a condition for which there is no solid evidence, either of
the slime or of the species (singular or plural) ostensibly sprung
from it.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
19 Feb 2004 01:49:35 PM |
|
|
In article <40339BA4.3BBBF58B@worldnet.att.net>,
wrote...
mel turner wrote:
In article <4032C1F3.71E7A9FF@worldnet.att.net>,
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
Naah. That's the idea of universal common descent. "Evolution" would
include that, but minimally evolution is just the idea that the
genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over generations.
Common descent, on the other hand, is the idea that groups of related
species are descended from common ancestral species. All of these are
well supported by the evidence, but they're pretty clearly separable.
"Evolution" and common descent would still be very well supported
even if we had found some organisms that didn't descend from any
common ancestor shared with all other organisms. There could have
been two or more separate "kinds" of life without that being any
problem for the concept of "evolution"; it so happened that no
evidence is found for any such completely separate origins of life
from non-life.
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning.
Sure, and biological evolution will have begun along with the first
organisms, or really with the first imperfectly self-replicating
prebiotic systems.
But still, we don't have to have any clear handle on the beginnings of
evolution to be able to characterize how evolution works, and how it
has worked throughout the history of life on earth..
For evolution "species" begins in primordial
slime,
The first life, perhaps. New species continue to begin every time an
ancestral species splits. People can and do study new species formation
happening today.
a condition for which there is no solid evidence, either of
the slime or of the species (singular or plural) ostensibly sprung
from it.
Even if it were true that we have no knowledge at all of the origins
of the first life, we still know quite a lot about how it has evolved
ever since life first arose somehow.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
23 Feb 2004 05:02:33 AM |
|
|
mel turner wrote:
In article <40339BA4.3BBBF58B@worldnet.att.net>,
wrote...
mel turner wrote:
In article <4032C1F3.71E7A9FF@worldnet.att.net>,
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Hallelujah!!!
Naah. That's the idea of universal common descent. "Evolution" would
include that, but minimally evolution is just the idea that the
genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over generations.
Common descent, on the other hand, is the idea that groups of related
species are descended from common ancestral species. All of these are
well supported by the evidence, but they're pretty clearly separable.
"Evolution" and common descent would still be very well supported
even if we had found some organisms that didn't descend from any
common ancestor shared with all other organisms. There could have
been two or more separate "kinds" of life without that being any
problem for the concept of "evolution"; it so happened that no
evidence is found for any such completely separate origins of life
from non-life.
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning.
Sure, and biological evolution will have begun along with the first
organisms, or really with the first imperfectly self-replicating
prebiotic systems.
Where did [they] come from?
But still, we don't have to have any clear handle on the beginnings of
evolution to be able to characterize how evolution works, and how it
has worked throughout the history of life on earth..
The only way to have a "clear handle" on the mechanism
is to know how it began.
For evolution "species" begins in primordial
slime,
The first life, perhaps. New species continue to begin every time an
ancestral species splits. People can and do study new species formation
happening today.
You mean people imagine new species evolving from old.
a condition for which there is no solid evidence, either of
the slime or of the species (singular or plural) ostensibly sprung
from it.
Even if it were true that we have no knowledge at all of the origins
of the first life, we still know quite a lot about how it has evolved
ever since life first arose somehow.
If speculation is knowledge, I suppose.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
23 Feb 2004 07:15:16 PM |
|
|
In article <4039DF73.DB9BAA63@worldnet.att.net>,
Roy Jose Lorr <> wrote:
mel turner wrote:
In article <40339BA4.3BBBF58B@worldnet.att.net>,
wrote...
[...]
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning.
Sure, and biological evolution will have begun along with the first
organisms, or really with the first imperfectly self-replicating
prebiotic systems.
Where did [they] come from?
*
Brooklyn.
earle
*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
24 Feb 2004 05:03:05 AM |
|
|
In article <4039DF73.DB9BAA63@worldnet.att.net>,
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
mel turner wrote:
In article <40339BA4.3BBBF58B@worldnet.att.net>,
wrote...
mel turner wrote:
[snip]
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning.
Sure, and biological evolution will have begun along with the first
organisms, or really with the first imperfectly self-replicating
prebiotic systems.
Where did [they] come from?
From chemistry on the early earth, most likely, but right now the
best scientific answer will be "we don't know".
But still, we don't have to have any clear handle on the beginnings of
evolution to be able to characterize how evolution works, and how it
has worked throughout the history of life on earth..
The only way to have a "clear handle" on the mechanism
is to know how it began.
No, it will continue to operate as it does no matter how the
first organisms may have got here.
For evolution "species" begins in primordial
slime,
The first life, perhaps. New species continue to begin every time an
ancestral species splits. People can and do study new species formation
happening today.
You mean people imagine new species evolving from old.
I mean just what I said.
a condition for which there is no solid evidence, either of
the slime or of the species (singular or plural) ostensibly sprung
from it.
Even if it were true that we have no knowledge at all of the origins
of the first life, we still know quite a lot about how it has evolved
ever since life first arose somehow.
If speculation is knowledge, I suppose.
Could any form of knowledge ever be sufficiently free of
"speculation" [= interpretation?]?
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
26 Feb 2004 11:59:14 AM |
|
|
mel turner wrote:
In article <4039DF73.DB9BAA63@worldnet.att.net>,
[Roy Jose Lorr] wrote...
mel turner wrote:
In article <40339BA4.3BBBF58B@worldnet.att.net>,
wrote...
mel turner wrote:
[snip]
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning.
Sure, and biological evolution will have begun along with the first
organisms, or really with the first imperfectly self-replicating
prebiotic systems.
Where did [they] come from?
From chemistry on the early earth, most likely, but right now the
best scientific answer will be "we don't know".
But still, we don't have to have any clear handle on the beginnings of
evolution to be able to characterize how evolution works, and how it
has worked throughout the history of life on earth..
The only way to have a "clear handle" on the mechanism
is to know how it began.
No, it will continue to operate as it does no matter how the
first organisms may have got here.
That's a pretty broad statement given the scientific concept of falsifiability.
For evolution "species" begins in primordial
slime,
The first life, perhaps. New species continue to begin every time an
ancestral species splits. People can and do study new species formation
happening today.
You mean people imagine new species evolving from old.
I mean just what I said.
a condition for which there is no solid evidence, either of
the slime or of the species (singular or plural) ostensibly sprung
from it.
Even if it were true that we have no knowledge at all of the origins
of the first life, we still know quite a lot about how it has evolved
ever since life first arose somehow.
If speculation is knowledge, I suppose.
Could any form of knowledge ever be sufficiently free of
"speculation" [= interpretation?]?
My point.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 09:17:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
I thought I would pipe in before you dragged this fellow through the mud
over this, or worse, toyed with him first.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Theobald" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 12:40:34 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc35mga.1b8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
I thought I would pipe in before you dragged this fellow through the mud
over this, or worse, toyed with him first.
Note that I did *not* claim that evolution = common descent. Sheldon
removed the quotes clearly indicating it was Niles Eldredge's
statement, not mine.
Douglas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 03:10:53 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402172243.216d46c0@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc35mga.1b8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
I thought I would pipe in before you dragged this fellow through the mud
over this, or worse, toyed with him first.
Note that I did *not* claim that evolution = common descent. Sheldon
removed the quotes clearly indicating it was Niles Eldredge's
statement, not mine.
I apologize for associating you with Eldredge.
At least he isn't a ***** about stating his beliefs.
http://www.kcfs.org/miller/response.html
"As our textbook points out, evolution is best defined as what Darwin called
"descent with modification," meaning that today's living species are the
modified descendants of species that preceded them. As the most prestigious
scientific body in the United States, The National Academy of Sciences, writes,
evolution: "explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time,
biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species. Darwin
called this process 'descent with modification,' which remains a good definition
of biological evolution today." (From Science and Creationism, page 27. National
Academy Press, 1999) "
Seems they left out *all* living things supposedly being *related*.
http://www.paleobio.org/education/nutshell.html
"Every organism alive today has a history that can be traced back to when life
originated, more than three and a half billion years ago. All living things
(bacteria under a microscope, trees in your backyard, and pets in your lap) are
the current representatives of lineages, or continuous lines of descent, that
began more than three billion years ago when the first cells evolved. Even YOUR
history can be traced back to this time when all life shared a single common
ancestor. To share a common ancestor is to be related. This means that all
living things share some degree of relatedness."
.
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 06:41:46 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402172243.216d46c0@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc35mga.1b8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
I thought I would pipe in before you dragged this fellow through the mud
over this, or worse, toyed with him first.
Note that I did *not* claim that evolution = common descent. Sheldon
removed the quotes clearly indicating it was Niles Eldredge's
statement, not mine.
I apologize for associating you with Eldredge.
At least he isn't a ***** about stating his beliefs.
http://www.kcfs.org/miller/response.html
"As our textbook points out, evolution is best defined as what Darwin called
"descent with modification," meaning that today's living species are the
modified descendants of species that preceded them. As the most prestigious
scientific body in the United States, The National Academy of Sciences, writes,
evolution: "explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time,
biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species. Darwin
called this process 'descent with modification,' which remains a good definition
of biological evolution today." (From Science and Creationism, page 27. National
Academy Press, 1999) "
Seems they left out *all* living things supposedly being *related*.
http://www.paleobio.org/education/nutshell.html
"Every organism alive today has a history that can be traced back to when life
originated, more than three and a half billion years ago. All living things
(bacteria under a microscope, trees in your backyard, and pets in your lap) are
the current representatives of lineages, or continuous lines of descent, that
began more than three billion years ago when the first cells evolved. Even YOUR
history can be traced back to this time when all life shared a single common
ancestor. To share a common ancestor is to be related. This means that all
living things share some degree of relatedness."
That's nice.
When creationists say they have a scientific theory of creation they
want taught in schools, are they lying to us, or are they just delusional.
Which is it.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= 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: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 06:56:57 PM |
|
|
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:40340705$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402172243.216d46c0@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc35mga.1b8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
I thought I would pipe in before you dragged this fellow through the mud
over this, or worse, toyed with him first.
Note that I did *not* claim that evolution = common descent. Sheldon
removed the quotes clearly indicating it was Niles Eldredge's
statement, not mine.
I apologize for associating you with Eldredge.
At least he isn't a ***** about stating his beliefs.
http://www.kcfs.org/miller/response.html
"As our textbook points out, evolution is best defined as what Darwin called
"descent with modification," meaning that today's living species are the
modified descendants of species that preceded them. As the most prestigious
scientific body in the United States, The National Academy of Sciences,
writes,
evolution: "explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time,
biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species.
Darwin
called this process 'descent with modification,' which remains a good
definition
of biological evolution today." (From Science and Creationism, page 27.
National
Academy Press, 1999) "
Seems they left out *all* living things supposedly being *related*.
http://www.paleobio.org/education/nutshell.html
"Every organism alive today has a history that can be traced back to when
life
originated, more than three and a half billion years ago. All living things
(bacteria under a microscope, trees in your backyard, and pets in your lap)
are
the current representatives of lineages, or continuous lines of descent,
that
began more than three billion years ago when the first cells evolved. Even
YOUR
history can be traced back to this time when all life shared a single common
ancestor. To share a common ancestor is to be related. This means that all
living things share some degree of relatedness."
That's nice.
When creationists say they have a scientific theory of creation they
want taught in schools, are they lying to us, or are they just delusional.
Which is it.
When you insist that they are either lying or delusional, are you either
lying, or delusional. Which is it, moron?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
