| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
08 Jul 2006 11:47:23 PM |
| Object: |
Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
Herin lies the root cause for the controversy among Biologists
concerning the ToE. Mainly, it's because mathematics proves that
evolution is mathmatically unprovable, and it has been left up to them
(Biologists) to explain why.
Here goes...
"We can use the mathematics of natural selection to show how two
populations with known alleles and known but differing selection
pressures would diverge. But we can use the same mathematics to show
how they would recombine. The mathematics of natural selection cannot
tell us whether or not the two populations upon recombining will
become two species or remain one. In order to answer that question we
must make additional assumptions about the selection pressures against
the hybrids, and those are assumptions about the environment not about
the intrinsic population dynamics."
http://www.iorg.com/speciation.html#Modern%20Theory%20Natural%20Selection
Progress has been dismal. Biologists have yet to come to an agreement
in defining the term "species"....
"Biologists to this day do not agree on what constitutes a species.
Only the arguments brought to bare on either side have changed.
Taxonomists such as Ehrlich and Holm (1963) or Sneath and Sokal (1973)
are entrenched on the side that species are defined by Darwin’s
undefinable amount of indifference (which they are trying to define)
while others such as Ernst Mayr (1964, 1953) argue Wallace’s point
that the inherited bonds not only are discernable but that well
defined gaps exist in most cases (although not necessarily due to
sterility). White (1978) gives a more detailed summary of the
continuing disagreement over this issue that was so central to
Darwin’s theory."
http://www.iorg.com/speciation.html#Modern%20Theory%20Natural%20Selection
Sad isn't it? I mean how can we expect these guys to explain how apes
became men if they can't even agree on the definition of the word
"species", especially considering that evolution is mathematically
unprovable?
There remains however, a dim glow of hope from the ashes by way of the
field of genetics.
From the father of genetics (Gregor Mendel) we have been introduced to
the term "Hybrids" from the "theory of special creation"...
"Gregor Mendel's 1866 paper on plant hybridization formed the basis
for the modern study of genetics, which was used in the 1940s in
support of Darwin's theory of evolution. Mendel himself was interested
in the question of evolution, but ironically his experiments were done
in support of the theory of special creation. He worked in the
tradition of Kölreuter and Gärtner, studying Linnaeus's theory that
hybrids played a role in evolution. Specifically, his experiments were
designed to expose an essential difference between hybrids and
species."
http://tomclegg.net/tom/mendel.html
The "dim hope" is as follows. Biologists are in such disagreement not
only since it is mathematically unprovable that evolution occurred, or
that they can't come to an agreement over just exactly what a
"species" is, but also as a result of the fact that "missing links"
are virtually non-existant i.e. the lack of evidence WRT "Intermediate
Forms" (transitional species)....
--- Why Intermediate Forms Are Rarely Found ---
"As discussed earlier in this paper, Darwin considered the general
absence of forms intermediate between species to be a difficulty with
his theory of speciation. I pointed out that his defense of the theory
lay mainly in explaining why the data did not exist rather than
convincing the reader that intermediate forms ever did exist. The
mechanism of speciation by selection against the hybrids provides a
more direct answer as to why intermediate forms generally do not exist
between species."
http://www.iorg.com/speciation.html#Modern%20Theory%20Natural%20Selection
Enter Medels hybrids, and the "theory of special creation".
Simply put, "hybrids" of species go into extiction early on and
therefore leave very little (almost none) fossil evidence for
scientists to be able to proclaim a missing link.
Currently, hybrids with the capability of reproduction have been
positively identified. According to the special hybrid theory, you may
have evolved from a water frog (or possibly a spineless salamander).
So far, two frogs have been identified. They are
1) Rana esculenta L.
and
2) RP-hybrid.
During my years as a Biologist, I always favoured Rana pipens on
account of his slender body, pretty spots, and his ability to leap
great distances. Perhaps some day they'll name him as the thrid
hybridogenetic frog.
--- Hybridogenesis ---
"The term hybridogenesis was coined by R. J. Schultz and indicates a
reproductional mode which is found in a few animal groups (e.g. the
topminnow Poeciliopsis, a small fish in desert streams in Mexico and
Soutwestern USA; water frogs; Bacillus, stick insects in Italy). This
mode marks hybrids between two parental species (A,B) who are able to
reproduce by backcrossing which one of the parent. These hybrid
normally contain two chromosome sets (AB, one from each parent
species) in their body cells, but in the gonads (ovar or testicles)
the chromosome set of one parent is lost, so that only one set remains
(A or B), with A in their gonads, hybrids can backcross with B and
vice versa."
http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/PBhtmls/hybridogenesis.html
--- Water frog hybrids ---
"The following hybrids are known to be hybridogenetic . These hybrids
can persist in nature by backcrossing with one of their parental
species. This reproduction mode is not very common and is known only
in fish (Poeciliopsis) in mexican desert streams and in stick insects
( Bacillus).
Rana esculenta L. is a hybrid between Rana lessonae and Rana ridibunda
RP-hybrid is a hybrid probably between Rana esculenta and Rana
perezi "
http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/PBhtmls/hybrids.html
I've also found evidence of a hybrid spineless salamander in my
research, but that evidence so far is not nearly as compelling as that
of the Italian stick bug and the 2 water frogs mentioned above.
However, since a salamander crawling up out of the primordial soup and
eventually becoming a human is more compelling than notion of a warty
frog doing the same.... I will Google it and the Special Creation
Theory periodically.
Meanwhile I'll leave you with this to ponder... "are hybrids a result
of special creation or just another unexplainable fact of evolution"?
Later,
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
09 Jul 2006 05:47:57 AM |
|
|
"Jd" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:j2a1b25skteahmr3ibeujrlo1l15sa9oq6@4ax.com...
Herin lies the root cause for the controversy among Biologists
concerning the ToE. Mainly, it's because mathematics proves that
evolution is mathmatically unprovable, and it has been left up to them
(Biologists) to explain why.
There is no controversy. amongst biologists, about the validity theory of
evolution.
There is only insane bellowing from a relatively few people whio have given
up their science and taken up with (christian) religious fanaticism!
You don't need mathematics to know that most scientific theories are, and
can never be, proven.
Theories become facts when EVERYTHING is known concerning the claims of the
theory.
We do not, nor can we, know EVERYTHING about evolution (gravity, or energy
(E=MC squared) - so they are still called theories, though we accept them as
validated in our every day experiences.
Here goes...
"We can use the mathematics of natural selection to show how two
populations with known alleles and known but differing selection
pressures would diverge. But we can use the same mathematics to show
how they would recombine. The mathematics of natural selection cannot
tell us whether or not the two populations upon recombining will
become two species or remain one. In order to answer that question we
must make additional assumptions about the selection pressures against
the hybrids, and those are assumptions about the environment not about
the intrinsic population dynamics."
You cannot, by mathematics, disprove something that has already happened!
http://www.iorg.com/speciation.html#Modern%20Theory%20Natural%20Selection
Progress has been dismal. Biologists have yet to come to an agreement
in defining the term "species"....
Even if that were true, it would have no bearing on the valaidity of the
T.O.E.!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
11 Jul 2006 01:41:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 06:47:57 -0400, in alt.atheism , "ZenIsWhen"
<ZenIsWhen@MYOB.com> in <12b1nmpm27s6o62@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
[snip]
You don't need mathematics to know that most scientific theories are, and
can never be, proven.
Theories become facts when EVERYTHING is known concerning the claims of the
theory.
Theories never become facts (and we can never know everything).
Theories are explanations and explanations remain that. Facts are
observations and remain that as well. A given notion can be seen as
fact or theory depending on how you view it. Consider orbits. Orbits
are explanations of our observations of planets at different position.
Or orbits are facts to explain with momentum and gravity. But the
explanatory nature of the orbit does not disappear.
We do not, nor can we, know EVERYTHING about evolution (gravity, or energy
(E=MC squared) - so they are still called theories, though we accept them as
validated in our every day experiences.
And we have a fact of evolution as well. This fact includes speciation
and common descent.
[snip]
--
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: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
11 Jul 2006 06:13:29 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:47:23 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<j2a1b25skteahmr3ibeujrlo1l15sa9oq6@4ax.com>:
Herin lies the root cause for the controversy among Biologists
concerning the ToE. Mainly, it's because mathematics proves that
evolution is mathmatically unprovable, and it has been left up to them
(Biologists) to explain why.
Please identify the supposed controversy within biology.
Your claim about evolution being mathematically unprovable is either
utterly meaningless or completely wrong, depending on what you actually
meant by that sentence.
Here goes...
"We can use the mathematics of natural selection to show how two
populations with known alleles and known but differing selection
pressures would diverge. But we can use the same mathematics to show
how they would recombine. The mathematics of natural selection cannot
tell us whether or not the two populations upon recombining will
become two species or remain one. In order to answer that question we
must make additional assumptions about the selection pressures against
the hybrids, and those are assumptions about the environment not about
the intrinsic population dynamics."
http://www.iorg.com/speciation.html#Modern%20Theory%20Natural%20Selection
What do you think this is telling us? Populations diverge and tend to go
their own way for a while. If the populations are rejoined, they may be
separate species or they may interbreed. This is a fairly simple
concept.
Sounds simple yes. But in studying the genetics of this recombining
in human ancestor candidates, scientists have discovered a 1 million
year error in the timeline of current evolutionary theory.
"The researchers, working at the Cambridge-based Broad Institute of
Harvard and MIT, used a wealth of newly available genetic data to
estimate the time when the first human ancestors split from the
chimpanzees. The team arrived at an answer that is at least 1 million
years later than paleontologists had believed, based on fossils of
early, humanlike creatures."
"The lead scientist said that this jarring conflict with the fossil
record, combined with a number of other strange genetic patterns the
team uncovered, led him to a startling explanation: that human
ancestors evolved apart from the chimpanzees for hundreds of thousands
of years, and then started breeding with them again before a final
break."
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
Progress has been dismal. Biologists have yet to come to an agreement
in defining the term "species"....
We have several definitions of what species are depending on how it is
being applied. The problem is that our definition of species is a fairly
clear simplification of a much more complex interrelationship of life
forms over time.
Yeah. So simple Darwin said that some of the most brilliant scientists
he knew thought that humans should be divided up into anywhere from 2
to 63 species....
"Man has been studied more carefully than any other
animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst
capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or
race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five
(Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven
(Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins),
twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to
Burke." - Charles Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of
Man)
[snip]
Nature works as it works. We are trying to explain what is happening.
For the purposes of pedantry, we tend to oversimplify in introductory
courses, adding the complexity later after the students understand the
basics. Hybrids are an _explainable_ fact of evolution and they have
been explained.
That is exactly what I'm saying. But there's more. Hybrids have
become important since it is mathematically impossible to prove a
diverging species can recombine and form a new species.
"Toumai" for example is a recent find and is hailed by some as the
earliest human ancestor ever found:
Toumai- "In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a
skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike
features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in
Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the
earliest member of the human family found so far."
"Toumai" has already been used to explain the 1 million year error in
evolutionary theory by introduction of the "hybrid". Add to that the
notion of hybrids going extinct very quickly (and rather conveniently
for baffeled scientists) and you have all the components for an even
stronger religion call "evolution".
"The new report, published in today's issue of the journal Nature,
estimates that final break between the human and chimpanzee species
did not come until 6.3 million years ago at the earliest, and probably
less than 5.4 million years ago."
"This contradiction could be resolved, Reich said, if early creatures
like Toumai then interbred with chimpanzee ancestors, leaving a
population of hybrids that developed into today's humans. (In this
scenario, the line of Toumai creatures then went extinct.) "
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
The theory of evolution requires more faith than do any of the modern
day religions of the world.
Jd
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom
of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." - Jesus Christ
(Luke 16:16)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
12 Jul 2006 02:09:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:13:29 GMT, Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:47:23 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<j2a1b25skteahmr3ibeujrlo1l15sa9oq6@4ax.com>:
Herin lies the root cause for the controversy among Biologists
concerning the ToE. Mainly, it's because mathematics proves that
evolution is mathmatically unprovable, and it has been left up to them
(Biologists) to explain why.
Please identify the supposed controversy within biology.
Your claim about evolution being mathematically unprovable is either
utterly meaningless or completely wrong, depending on what you actually
meant by that sentence.
Here goes...
"We can use the mathematics of natural selection to show how two
populations with known alleles and known but differing selection
pressures would diverge. But we can use the same mathematics to show
how they would recombine. The mathematics of natural selection cannot
tell us whether or not the two populations upon recombining will
become two species or remain one. In order to answer that question we
must make additional assumptions about the selection pressures against
the hybrids, and those are assumptions about the environment not about
the intrinsic population dynamics."
http://www.iorg.com/speciation.html#Modern%20Theory%20Natural%20Selection
What do you think this is telling us? Populations diverge and tend to go
their own way for a while. If the populations are rejoined, they may be
separate species or they may interbreed. This is a fairly simple
concept.
Sounds simple yes. But in studying the genetics of this recombining
in human ancestor candidates, scientists have discovered a 1 million
year error in the timeline of current evolutionary theory.
"The researchers, working at the Cambridge-based Broad Institute of
Harvard and MIT, used a wealth of newly available genetic data to
estimate the time when the first human ancestors split from the
chimpanzees. The team arrived at an answer that is at least 1 million
years later than paleontologists had believed, based on fossils of
early, humanlike creatures."
"The lead scientist said that this jarring conflict with the fossil
record, combined with a number of other strange genetic patterns the
team uncovered, led him to a startling explanation: that human
ancestors evolved apart from the chimpanzees for hundreds of thousands
of years, and then started breeding with them again before a final
break."
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
Progress has been dismal. Biologists have yet to come to an agreement
in defining the term "species"....
We have several definitions of what species are depending on how it is
being applied. The problem is that our definition of species is a fairly
clear simplification of a much more complex interrelationship of life
forms over time.
Yeah. So simple Darwin said that some of the most brilliant scientists
he knew thought that humans should be divided up into anywhere from 2
to 63 species....
"Man has been studied more carefully than any other
animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst
capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or
race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five
(Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven
(Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins),
twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to
Burke." - Charles Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of
Man)
[snip]
Nature works as it works. We are trying to explain what is happening.
For the purposes of pedantry, we tend to oversimplify in introductory
courses, adding the complexity later after the students understand the
basics. Hybrids are an _explainable_ fact of evolution and they have
been explained.
That is exactly what I'm saying. But there's more. Hybrids have
become important since it is mathematically impossible to prove a
diverging species can recombine and form a new species.
"Toumai" for example is a recent find and is hailed by some as the
earliest human ancestor ever found:
Toumai- "In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a
skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike
features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in
Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the
earliest member of the human family found so far."
"Toumai" has already been used to explain the 1 million year error in
evolutionary theory by introduction of the "hybrid". Add to that the
notion of hybrids going extinct very quickly (and rather conveniently
for baffeled scientists) and you have all the components for an even
stronger religion call "evolution".
"The new report, published in today's issue of the journal Nature,
estimates that final break between the human and chimpanzee species
did not come until 6.3 million years ago at the earliest, and probably
less than 5.4 million years ago."
"This contradiction could be resolved, Reich said, if early creatures
like Toumai then interbred with chimpanzee ancestors, leaving a
population of hybrids that developed into today's humans. (In this
scenario, the line of Toumai creatures then went extinct.) "
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
The theory of evolution requires more faith than do any of the modern
day religions of the world.
Jd
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom
of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." - Jesus Christ
(Luke 16:16)
Did you really think this ***** was going to fool anyone?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
11 Jul 2006 10:41:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:13:29 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<fsi8b2931ng2i5m60fchmb2pulaq5df7nc@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:47:23 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<j2a1b25skteahmr3ibeujrlo1l15sa9oq6@4ax.com>:
Herin lies the root cause for the controversy among Biologists
concerning the ToE. Mainly, it's because mathematics proves that
evolution is mathmatically unprovable, and it has been left up to them
(Biologists) to explain why.
Please identify the supposed controversy within biology.
None identified, I see.
Your claim about evolution being mathematically unprovable is either
utterly meaningless or completely wrong, depending on what you actually
meant by that sentence.
Here goes...
"We can use the mathematics of natural selection to show how two
populations with known alleles and known but differing selection
pressures would diverge. But we can use the same mathematics to show
how they would recombine. The mathematics of natural selection cannot
tell us whether or not the two populations upon recombining will
become two species or remain one. In order to answer that question we
must make additional assumptions about the selection pressures against
the hybrids, and those are assumptions about the environment not about
the intrinsic population dynamics."
http://www.iorg.com/speciation.html#Modern%20Theory%20Natural%20Selection
What do you think this is telling us? Populations diverge and tend to go
their own way for a while. If the populations are rejoined, they may be
separate species or they may interbreed. This is a fairly simple
concept.
Sounds simple yes. But in studying the genetics of this recombining
in human ancestor candidates, scientists have discovered a 1 million
year error in the timeline of current evolutionary theory.
"The researchers, working at the Cambridge-based Broad Institute of
Harvard and MIT, used a wealth of newly available genetic data to
estimate the time when the first human ancestors split from the
chimpanzees. The team arrived at an answer that is at least 1 million
years later than paleontologists had believed, based on fossils of
early, humanlike creatures."
So what? We haven't spent a lot of time looking for fossils of the
precursors of other great apes, primarily because humans are so curious
about themselves, but also because it would be nearly impossible to tell
exactly where the separation occured from mere fossils.
"The lead scientist said that this jarring conflict with the fossil
record, combined with a number of other strange genetic patterns the
team uncovered, led him to a startling explanation: that human
ancestors evolved apart from the chimpanzees for hundreds of thousands
of years, and then started breeding with them again before a final
break."
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
It's an interesting idea. It may even be true that chimps, bonobos and
humans are capable of interbreeding today. What do you think this
implies?
Progress has been dismal. Biologists have yet to come to an agreement
in defining the term "species"....
We have several definitions of what species are depending on how it is
being applied. The problem is that our definition of species is a fairly
clear simplification of a much more complex interrelationship of life
forms over time.
Yeah. So simple Darwin said that some of the most brilliant scientists
he knew thought that humans should be divided up into anywhere from 2
to 63 species....
They were wrong, of course.
"Man has been studied more carefully than any other
animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst
capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or
race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five
(Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven
(Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins),
twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to
Burke." - Charles Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of
Man)
Notice how many species Darwin thought there were?
[snip]
Nature works as it works. We are trying to explain what is happening.
For the purposes of pedantry, we tend to oversimplify in introductory
courses, adding the complexity later after the students understand the
basics. Hybrids are an _explainable_ fact of evolution and they have
been explained.
That is exactly what I'm saying. But there's more. Hybrids have
become important since it is mathematically impossible to prove a
diverging species can recombine and form a new species.
That claim is known to be wrong about plants and is not reliably
accurate in animals.
"Toumai" for example is a recent find and is hailed by some as the
earliest human ancestor ever found:
Toumai- "In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a
skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike
features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in
Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the
earliest member of the human family found so far."
"Toumai" has already been used to explain the 1 million year error in
evolutionary theory by introduction of the "hybrid". Add to that the
notion of hybrids going extinct very quickly (and rather conveniently
for baffeled scientists) and you have all the components for an even
stronger religion call "evolution".
"The new report, published in today's issue of the journal Nature,
estimates that final break between the human and chimpanzee species
did not come until 6.3 million years ago at the earliest, and probably
less than 5.4 million years ago."
"This contradiction could be resolved, Reich said, if early creatures
like Toumai then interbred with chimpanzee ancestors, leaving a
population of hybrids that developed into today's humans. (In this
scenario, the line of Toumai creatures then went extinct.) "
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
It's a wonderful discovery that gives scientists a great number of new
questions to research.
The theory of evolution requires more faith than do any of the modern
day religions of the world.
No, the theory of evolution takes no faith at all.
Jd
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom
of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." - Jesus Christ
(Luke 16:16)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
12 Jul 2006 06:50:42 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
Jd quoted:
"This contradiction could be resolved, Reich said, if early creatures
like Toumai then interbred with chimpanzee ancestors, leaving a
population of hybrids that developed into today's humans. (In this
scenario, the line of Toumai creatures then went extinct.) "
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
It's a wonderful discovery that gives scientists a great number of new
questions to research.
Yeah, I'm having a blast. I hope to also enlighten most of the readers
here even though they are primarily interested only in Christian
bashing. It makes me wonder however, since they obviously spend no
time whatsoever studying the Word of God, how could they be so
ignorant of scientific matters except it be that they spend all
they're spare time on cell phones or playing online poker.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
12 Jul 2006 08:33:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:50:42 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<519bb2hlpcvu64v5uiku8hrme33um1je21@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
Jd quoted:
"This contradiction could be resolved, Reich said, if early creatures
like Toumai then interbred with chimpanzee ancestors, leaving a
population of hybrids that developed into today's humans. (In this
scenario, the line of Toumai creatures then went extinct.) "
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
It's a wonderful discovery that gives scientists a great number of new
questions to research.
Yeah, I'm having a blast. I hope to also enlighten most of the readers
here even though they are primarily interested only in Christian
bashing. It makes me wonder however, since they obviously spend no
time whatsoever studying the Word of God, how could they be so
ignorant of scientific matters except it be that they spend all
they're spare time on cell phones or playing online poker.
Christians do not hate knowledge. They do not lie about science. They do
not deny that evolution happened. Sure, there are people who claim to be
Christian who do that, but there are people who claim to be Christian
who want the poor to suffer and think its just fine to discriminate
against women or people with slightly different skin colors.
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
14 Jul 2006 08:10:22 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
Well, if you're going to insist that only Christianity has this "Word
of God", who am I to disagree?
Jd
"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to
raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel:
I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be
my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
14 Jul 2006 10:27:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:10:22 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<jtmgb2lbe1tjljd1jpo7ao4l30iegku4k9@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
Well, if you're going to insist that only Christianity has this "Word
of God", who am I to disagree?
I'm not, but there seem to be many Christians who insist that their
particular interpretation of the Bible is the only 'Word of God'.
"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to
raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel:
I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be
my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
23 Jul 2006 12:50:38 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:10:22 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<jtmgb2lbe1tjljd1jpo7ao4l30iegku4k9@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
Well, if you're going to insist that only Christianity has this "Word
of God", who am I to disagree?
I'm not, but there seem to be many Christians who insist that their
particular interpretation of the Bible is the only 'Word of God'.
Well, you can read the Bible for yourself then come back and set them
"many Christians" straight.
But don't forget this.... once you take upon yourself the task of
explaining the things of God that you must also fight against the
things that are not of God.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
23 Jul 2006 11:46:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:50:38 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<h496c29ir1dt68nd24e37mtaiigqcmhk4n@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:10:22 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<jtmgb2lbe1tjljd1jpo7ao4l30iegku4k9@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
Well, if you're going to insist that only Christianity has this "Word
of God", who am I to disagree?
I'm not, but there seem to be many Christians who insist that their
particular interpretation of the Bible is the only 'Word of God'.
Well, you can read the Bible for yourself then come back and set them
"many Christians" straight.
I have read the Bible, completely, in more than one translation. That is
why I am always surprised to hear supposed Christians telling me about
things in the Bible that just aren't so, or claiming that some story in
the Bible is historically true, when the evidence shows that the story
was not and could not have been true. Those are the Christians who are
worshipping their interpretation of the Bible.
But don't forget this.... once you take upon yourself the task of
explaining the things of God that you must also fight against the
things that are not of God.
I'm not trying to explain the things of God, I'm merely pointing out
that Christians who teach things contrary to the evidence invites
mockery of Christians and of God. Augustine condemned such ignorant
rants centuries ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
29 Jul 2006 06:51:38 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:25:07 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<qqhlc2dsfb5s54r4jmm3qv4uavgdn042mt@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:50:38 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<h496c29ir1dt68nd24e37mtaiigqcmhk4n@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:10:22 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<jtmgb2lbe1tjljd1jpo7ao4l30iegku4k9@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
Well, if you're going to insist that only Christianity has this "Word
of God", who am I to disagree?
I'm not, but there seem to be many Christians who insist that their
particular interpretation of the Bible is the only 'Word of God'.
Well, you can read the Bible for yourself then come back and set them
"many Christians" straight.
I have read the Bible, completely, in more than one translation. That is
why I am always surprised to hear supposed Christians telling me about
things in the Bible that just aren't so, or claiming that some story in
the Bible is historically true, when the evidence shows that the story
was not and could not have been true. Those are the Christians who are
worshipping their interpretation of the Bible.
Oh good! It's been quite a while since I've heard it so tell me once
again how is it that the Flood of Noah could not have occured as the
Bible says it did.
The boat, as described, would have collapsed, before the animals would
have all died of various impossibilities in the story.
The cultures that are documented to have been in existence were
unaffected.
The organisms of the world did not have the genetic bottleneck that
would have been a result of such a flood.
The geological evidence shows that there was no such flood.
Which parts are you interested in?
The part about all those marine fossils I've seen on the top of the
mountain where my hunting cabin is. It's 1200 feet above sea level.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
29 Jul 2006 08:35:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 23:51:38 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<e54oc2t0nph3htrkj8idnmbp9epl31b64d@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:25:07 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<qqhlc2dsfb5s54r4jmm3qv4uavgdn042mt@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:50:38 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<h496c29ir1dt68nd24e37mtaiigqcmhk4n@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:10:22 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<jtmgb2lbe1tjljd1jpo7ao4l30iegku4k9@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
Well, if you're going to insist that only Christianity has this "Word
of God", who am I to disagree?
I'm not, but there seem to be many Christians who insist that their
particular interpretation of the Bible is the only 'Word of God'.
Well, you can read the Bible for yourself then come back and set them
"many Christians" straight.
I have read the Bible, completely, in more than one translation. That is
why I am always surprised to hear supposed Christians telling me about
things in the Bible that just aren't so, or claiming that some story in
the Bible is historically true, when the evidence shows that the story
was not and could not have been true. Those are the Christians who are
worshipping their interpretation of the Bible.
Oh good! It's been quite a while since I've heard it so tell me once
again how is it that the Flood of Noah could not have occured as the
Bible says it did.
The boat, as described, would have collapsed, before the animals would
have all died of various impossibilities in the story.
The cultures that are documented to have been in existence were
unaffected.
The organisms of the world did not have the genetic bottleneck that
would have been a result of such a flood.
The geological evidence shows that there was no such flood.
Which parts are you interested in?
The part about all those marine fossils I've seen on the top of the
mountain where my hunting cabin is. It's 1200 feet above sea level.
The problem you have is that Noah's Flood cannot explain how those
marine deposits got onto the mountain, but plate tectonics can.
Are Fundamentalists required to stay ignorant of science? Do really
beleive that mocking knowledge is the way to Heaven?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
11 Aug 2006 09:26:34 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 23:51:38 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<e54oc2t0nph3htrkj8idnmbp9epl31b64d@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:25:07 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<qqhlc2dsfb5s54r4jmm3qv4uavgdn042mt@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:50:38 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<h496c29ir1dt68nd24e37mtaiigqcmhk4n@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:10:22 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<jtmgb2lbe1tjljd1jpo7ao4l30iegku4k9@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
Well, if you're going to insist that only Christianity has this "Word
of God", who am I to disagree?
I'm not, but there seem to be many Christians who insist that their
particular interpretation of the Bible is the only 'Word of God'.
Well, you can read the Bible for yourself then come back and set them
"many Christians" straight.
I have read the Bible, completely, in more than one translation. That is
why I am always surprised to hear supposed Christians telling me about
things in the Bible that just aren't so, or claiming that some story in
the Bible is historically true, when the evidence shows that the story
was not and could not have been true. Those are the Christians who are
worshipping their interpretation of the Bible.
Oh good! It's been quite a while since I've heard it so tell me once
again how is it that the Flood of Noah could not have occured as the
Bible says it did.
The boat, as described, would have collapsed, before the animals would
have all died of various impossibilities in the story.
The cultures that are documented to have been in existence were
unaffected.
The organisms of the world did not have the genetic bottleneck that
would have been a result of such a flood.
The geological evidence shows that there was no such flood.
Which parts are you interested in?
The part about all those marine fossils I've seen on the top of the
mountain where my hunting cabin is. It's 1200 feet above sea level.
The problem you have is that Noah's Flood cannot explain how those
marine deposits got onto the mountain, but plate tectonics can.
Are Fundamentalists required to stay ignorant of science? Do really
beleive that mocking knowledge is the way to Heaven?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
In fact, science is currently working on proving the Bible
unknowingly. String theory has evolved to the point of professing the
existance of 11 dimesions often spoken of as "membranes".
Most of you seculars however, are too concerned with weekend free
minutes on your cell phones and obeying your local alpha matriarch
Jezbian to have anything to do with modern science.
It's a sad thing when a fundy like me can come in here and show the
utter ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity of you metrosapien feminized,
doped up geeks.
Sadly to say, most of Christiandom is oblivious to the extent to which
Jezbians have spread their tentacles (and legs) amongst the general
population and are therefore unequipped to address the overall
problems generated.
For general informational purposes and to any Christian which may be
reading this, the term "Jezbian" indicates that subversive matriarchal
forces which are decisively anti-white male, are at work in the
back-rooms of society, undermining the authoritative structure of a
given culture.
Here is the case where Jezebel faked the Kings hand writing and then
plotted to kill a male landowner in order to confiscate his land.....
1Kings 21:8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them
with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles
that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.
1Kings 21:9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, "Proclaim a
fast, and set Naboth on high among the people"
1Kings 21:10 "And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear
witness against him, saying, 'Thou didst blaspheme God and the king'.
And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die."
IOW a "Jezbian" is the ultimate feminist in her own eyes.
It was several years ago that I discovered just how disgusting these
Jezbians really were. I was involved in a conversation with this woman
who was married to a guy who provided his family well, and she was at
the most 4'9" tall and weighed in at ~ 250 pounds. As she was
obviously unable to control the input of junk food into her mouth, I
was sickened to the point of almost vomiting over the statement she
made about "not trusting her husband with the checkbook".
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
11 Aug 2006 10:08:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:26:34 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<eahqd2htdjb2ka4peh90qcjlfrlh5n3ur7@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
....
The problem you have is that Noah's Flood cannot explain how those
marine deposits got onto the mountain, but plate tectonics can.
Are Fundamentalists required to stay ignorant of science? Do really
beleive that mocking knowledge is the way to Heaven?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
That is a false claim. Noah's Flood is incompatible with the geological
evidence. Take a course in introductory geology to understand why you
are so completely wrong.
In fact, science is currently working on proving the Bible
unknowingly. String theory has evolved to the point of professing the
existance of 11 dimesions often spoken of as "membranes".
That is just nonsense. Nothing in the Bible remotely resembles string
theory or any other modern scientific theory.
Most of you seculars however, are too concerned with weekend free
minutes on your cell phones and obeying your local alpha matriarch
Jezbian to have anything to do with modern science.
That made less sense.
It's a sad thing when a fundy like me can come in here and show the
utter ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity of you metrosapien feminized,
doped up geeks.
Not doubt you have convinced yourself that you did this. No one else is
convinced.
Sadly to say, most of Christiandom is oblivious to the extent to which
Jezbians have spread their tentacles (and legs) amongst the general
population and are therefore unequipped to address the overall
problems generated.
For general informational purposes and to any Christian which may be
reading this, the term "Jezbian" indicates that subversive matriarchal
forces which are decisively anti-white male, are at work in the
back-rooms of society, undermining the authoritative structure of a
given culture.
Ignorant, racist and bigoted. Your must be proud of your totally hateful
perversion of Christianity.
Here is the case where Jezebel faked the Kings hand writing and then
plotted to kill a male landowner in order to confiscate his land.....
1Kings 21:8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them
with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles
that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.
1Kings 21:9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, "Proclaim a
fast, and set Naboth on high among the people"
1Kings 21:10 "And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear
witness against him, saying, 'Thou didst blaspheme God and the king'.
And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die."
IOW a "Jezbian" is the ultimate feminist in her own eyes.
It was several years ago that I discovered just how disgusting these
Jezbians really were. I was involved in a conversation with this woman
who was married to a guy who provided his family well, and she was at
the most 4'9" tall and weighed in at ~ 250 pounds. As she was
obviously unable to control the input of junk food into her mouth, I
was sickened to the point of almost vomiting over the statement she
made about "not trusting her husband with the checkbook".
You would be sick if you were for real. I'm convinced that you are but a
troll entertaining yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
12 Aug 2006 10:57:51 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:26:34 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
Actually we have. Repeatedly. In several disciplines.
There isn't enough water on Earth to cover the entire land area of the
planet. Even if there was enough water, the stated period of rain
(960 hours) would require several feet of water to fall on every
square foot of Earth ever second. That pressure would have smahed the
ark flat.
Then there's the fact that the flood would have radically changed the
salt levels in the oceans for centuries. No geological evidence for
this exists.
In fact, science is currently working on proving the Bible
unknowingly. String theory has evolved to the point of professing the
existance of 11 dimesions often spoken of as "membranes".
Ah. You must be really good at Twister.
Most of you seculars however, are too concerned with weekend free
minutes on your cell phones and obeying your local alpha matriarch
Jezbian to have anything to do with modern science.
ROTFLMAO!
It's a sad thing when a fundy like me can come in here and show the
utter ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity of you metrosapien feminized,
doped up geeks.
Matthew 7:1
Sadly to say, most of Christiandom is oblivious to the extent to which
Jezbians have spread their tentacles (and legs) amongst the general
population and are therefore unequipped to address the overall
problems generated.
You are really scared of women, right? They terrify you.
For general informational purposes and to any Christian which may be
reading this, the term "Jezbian" indicates that subversive matriarchal
forces which are decisively anti-white male, are at work in the
back-rooms of society, undermining the authoritative structure of a
given culture.
Yup. Mommy did a real job on you.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Powell" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
13 Aug 2006 08:22:01 AM |
|
|
"Jd" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:sqhtd2d9s6clbuiq44g98tfk4rm9qqtf0j@4ax.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:26:34 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
Actually we have. Repeatedly. In several disciplines.
There isn't enough water on Earth to cover the entire land area of the
planet. Even if there was enough water, the stated period of rain
(960 hours) would require several feet of water to fall on every
square foot of Earth ever second. That pressure would have smahed the
ark flat.
Then there's the fact that the flood would have radically changed the
salt levels in the oceans for centuries. No geological evidence for
this exists.
Lie.
Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Jd
Sure it has. Every day, until it is "reinterpreted" again to try and show it
is still true.
The 'Flood' is a myth. No evidence exists to give it any support. The only
way to reconcile this is to make your God a trickster.
James Powell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
14 Aug 2006 05:44:17 PM |
|
|
James Powell wrote:
"Jd" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:sqhtd2d9s6clbuiq44g98tfk4rm9qqtf0j@4ax.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:26:34 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
Actually we have. Repeatedly. In several disciplines.
There isn't enough water on Earth to cover the entire land area of the
planet. Even if there was enough water, the stated period of rain
(960 hours) would require several feet of water to fall on every
square foot of Earth ever second. That pressure would have smahed the
ark flat.
Then there's the fact that the flood would have radically changed the
salt levels in the oceans for centuries. No geological evidence for
this exists.
Lie.
Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Jd
Sure it has. Every day, until it is "reinterpreted" again to try and show it
is still true.
The 'Flood' is a myth. No evidence exists to give it any support. The only
way to reconcile this is to make your God a trickster.
James Powell
The Flood is not a "myth". Jesus verified the fact that it did indeed
occur in the days of Noah.....
Mt 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they
were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the
day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mt 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all
away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. - Jesus
Are you claiming to know more than Jesus?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Powell" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
15 Aug 2006 05:19:41 PM |
|
|
"Jd" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:9j22e255776rgjulo24i3qefplq6f057j3@4ax.com...
James Powell wrote:
"Jd" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:sqhtd2d9s6clbuiq44g98tfk4rm9qqtf0j@4ax.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:26:34 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
Actually we have. Repeatedly. In several disciplines.
There isn't enough water on Earth to cover the entire land area of the
planet. Even if there was enough water, the stated period of rain
(960 hours) would require several feet of water to fall on every
square foot of Earth ever second. That pressure would have smahed the
ark flat.
Then there's the fact that the flood would have radically changed the
salt levels in the oceans for centuries. No geological evidence for
this exists.
Lie.
Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Jd
Sure it has. Every day, until it is "reinterpreted" again to try and show
it
is still true.
The 'Flood' is a myth. No evidence exists to give it any support. The only
way to reconcile this is to make your God a trickster.
James Powell
The Flood is not a "myth". Jesus verified the fact that it did indeed
occur in the days of Noah.....
A myth verified by a myth.
James Powell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
14 Aug 2006 07:01:45 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:44:17 GMT iin alt.atheism?
\
The 'Flood' is a myth. No evidence exists to give it any support. The only
way to reconcile this is to make your God a trickster.
The Flood is not a "myth". Jesus verified the fact that it did indeed
occur in the days of Noah.....
Jesus is a myth as well.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
16 Aug 2006 05:32:18 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:44:17 GMT iin alt.atheism?
\
The 'Flood' is a myth. No evidence exists to give it any support. The only
way to reconcile this is to make your God a trickster.
The Flood is not a "myth". Jesus verified the fact that it did indeed
occur in the days of Noah.....
Jesus is a myth as well.
Go away DingleBerry.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
16 Aug 2006 08:19:30 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:32:18 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:44:17 GMT iin alt.atheism?
\
The 'Flood' is a myth. No evidence exists to give it any support. The only
way to reconcile this is to make your God a trickster.
The Flood is not a "myth". Jesus verified the fact that it did indeed
occur in the days of Noah.....
Jesus is a myth as well.
Go away DingleBerry.
Gosh. Hav en't heard that one since fifth grade.
Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels and in Revelation, is a myth.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
13 Aug 2006 10:37:28 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 04:59:19 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:26:34 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
Actually we have. Repeatedly. In several disciplines.
There isn't enough water on Earth to cover the entire land area of the
planet. Even if there was enough water, the stated period of rain
(960 hours) would require several feet of water to fall on every
square foot of Earth ever second. That pressure would have smahed the
ark flat.
Then there's the fact that the flood would have radically changed the
salt levels in the oceans for centuries. No geological evidence for
this exists.
Lie.
No, facts. Rocks don't lie. There was never a global flood. Now we
have found evidence of a massive period of flooding in Sumeria that
might be the basis of the flood myth, and of course the Black Sea
flood remains a good candidate, but no global flood.
Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Wrong. Thr Bible claims that grasshoppers have four legs and that
bats are birds.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
13 Aug 2006 12:20:25 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
<snip>
Now we have found evidence of a massive period of flooding
in Sumeria that might be the basis of the flood myth, and
of course the Black Sea flood remains a good candidate,
but no global flood.
Douglas Berry:
Agreed, no Noachian flood, but yes, a global flood, over
about 8,000 years, ending about 6,000 years ago.
Sadly, the Black Sea Flood is not a candidate for
a basis of a flood myth
One of its two main proponents has abandoned it
in the face of convincingly contradictory evidence,
and the other has nothing new to counter that
contradictory evidence.
The proponents never did have anything more than
a set of radiocarbon dates on shells that were
erroneously reported by them as having an identical age.
The more reasonable proponent has agreed that the
coincidence of those shell dates is better explained by
a change in the salinity of deep Black Sea water than by
a change in the surface level of the Black Sea.
Ergo, there is no longer any reason to consider
a catastrophic flood in the Black Sea basin as
a candidate for a basis of a flood myth, because
there is no evidence of a catastrophic flood
in the Black Sea basin within the last 12,000 years.
There is, though, plenty of evidence that there was
not
a catastrophic flood in the Black Sea basin
within the last 12,0000 years.
-
Daryl Krupa
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
14 Aug 2006 05:44:18 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 04:59:19 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:26:34 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
Actually we have. Repeatedly. In several disciplines.
There isn't enough water on Earth to cover the entire land area of the
planet. Even if there was enough water, the stated period of rain
(960 hours) would require several feet of water to fall on every
square foot of Earth ever second. That pressure would have smahed the
ark flat.
Then there's the fact that the flood would have radically changed the
salt levels in the oceans for centuries. No geological evidence for
this exists.
Lie.
No, facts. Rocks don't lie. There was never a global flood. Now we
have found evidence of a massive period of flooding in Sumeria that
might be the basis of the flood myth, and of course the Black Sea
flood remains a good candidate, but no global flood.
Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Wrong. Thr Bible claims that grasshoppers have four legs and that
bats are birds.
And 1000 years from now they could have 10 legs if they keep evolving,
right?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
14 Aug 2006 07:02:58 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:44:18 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 04:59:19 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> posting
the following on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:26:34 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Science cannot disprove Noah's flood.
Actually we have. Repeatedly. In several disciplines.
There isn't enough water on Earth to cover the entire land area of the
planet. Even if there was enough water, the stated period of rain
(960 hours) would require several feet of water to fall on every
square foot of Earth ever second. That pressure would have smahed the
ark flat.
Then there's the fact that the flood would have radically changed the
salt levels in the oceans for centuries. No geological evidence for
this exists.
Lie.
No, facts. Rocks don't lie. There was never a global flood. Now we
have found evidence of a massive period of flooding in Sumeria that
might be the basis of the flood myth, and of course the Black Sea
flood remains a good candidate, but no global flood.
Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Wrong. Thr Bible claims that grasshoppers have four legs and that
bats are birds.
And 1000 years from now they could have 10 legs if they keep evolving,
right?
Ah, but we have fossil insects dating back over 100 million years..
all with six legs. Nice try at avoiding a place where the Bible is
howlingly wrong.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
29 Jul 2006 08:04:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:51:38 +0000, Jd wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:25:07 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<qqhlc2dsfb5s54r4jmm3qv4uavgdn042mt@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:50:38 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<h496c29ir1dt68nd24e37mtaiigqcmhk4n@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:10:22 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<jtmgb2lbe1tjljd1jpo7ao4l30iegku4k9@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
The Word of God has nothing to do with science, and anyone who tries to
use God's Word as an excuse to ignore science is making Christianity as
a whole look bad.
Well, if you're going to insist that only Christianity has this "Word
of God", who am I to disagree?
I'm not, but there seem to be many Christians who insist that their
particular interpretation of the Bible is the only 'Word of God'.
Well, you can read the Bible for yourself then come back and set them
"many Christians" straight.
I have read the Bible, completely, in more than one translation. That is
why I am always surprised to hear supposed Christians telling me about
things in the Bible that just aren't so, or claiming that some story in
the Bible is historically true, when the evidence shows that the story
was not and could not have been true. Those are the Christians who are
worshipping their interpretation of the Bible.
Oh good! It's been quite a while since I've heard it so tell me once
again how is it that the Flood of Noah could not have occured as the
Bible says it did.
The boat, as described, would have collapsed, before the animals would
have all died of various impossibilities in the story.
The cultures that are documented to have been in existence were
unaffected.
The organisms of the world did not have the genetic bottleneck that
would have been a result of such a flood.
The geological evidence shows that there was no such flood.
Which parts are you interested in?
The part about all those marine fossils I've seen on the top of the
mountain where my hunting cabin is. It's 1200 feet above sea level.
You've never heard of plate tectonics and mountain-building, have you?
It's 1200 feet above sea level _now_ but when those sediments were first
laid down some millions of years ago it was dead flat under a large body
of water. It's amazing what a difference in the decor of a place a measly
few million years can make, isn't it?
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gene pools slime pools & plain fools |
30 Jul 2006 02:39:05 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:41:28 -0500, Free Lunch wrote
(in article <pcr8b2l3cibnjd023i6qvc706p2ghl8nup@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:13:29 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<fsi8b2931ng2i5m60fchmb2pulaq5df7nc@4ax.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:47:23 GMT, in alt.atheism
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
<j2a1b25skteahmr3ibeujrlo1l15sa9oq6@4ax.com>:
Herin lies the root cause for the controversy among Biologists
concerning the ToE. Mainly, it's because mathematics proves that
evolution is mathmatically unprovable, and it has been left up to them
(Biologists) to explain why.
Please identify the supposed controversy within biology.
None identified, I see.
Your claim about evolution being mathematically unprovable is either
utterly meaningless or completely wrong, depending on what you actually
meant by that sentence.
Here goes...
"We can use the mathematics of natural selection to show how two
populations with known alleles and known but differing selection
pressures would diverge. But we can use the same mathematics to show
how they would recombine. The mathematics of natural selection cannot
tell us whether or not the two populations upon recombining will
become two species or remain one. In order to answer that question we
must make additional assumptions about the selection pressures against
the hybrids, and those are assumptions about the environment not about
the intrinsic population dynamics."
http://www.iorg.com/speciation.html#Modern%20Theory%20Natural%20Selection
What do you think this is telling us? Populations diverge and tend to go
their own way for a while. If the populations are rejoined, they may be
separate species or they may interbreed. This is a fairly simple
concept.
Sounds simple yes. But in studying the genetics of this recombining
in human ancestor candidates, scientists have discovered a 1 million
year error in the timeline of current evolutionary theory.
"The researchers, working at the Cambridge-based Broad Institute of
Harvard and MIT, used a wealth of newly available genetic data to
estimate the time when the first human ancestors split from the
chimpanzees. The team arrived at an answer that is at least 1 million
years later than paleontologists had believed, based on fossils of
early, humanlike creatures."
So what? We haven't spent a lot of time looking for fossils of the
precursors of other great apes, primarily because humans are so curious
about themselves, but also because it would be nearly impossible to tell
exactly where the separation occured from mere fossils.
"The lead scientist said that this jarring conflict with the fossil
record, combined with a number of other strange genetic patterns the
team uncovered, led him to a startling explanation: that human
ancestors evolved apart from the chimpanzees for hundreds of thousands
of years, and then started breeding with them again before a final
break."
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_hav
e_bred_after_split/
It's an interesting idea. It may even be true that chimps, bonobos and
humans are capable of interbreeding today. What do you think this
implies?
About six new Constitutional Amendments submitted by Republicans.
Progress has been dismal. Biologists have yet to come to an agreement
in defining the term "species"....
We have several definitions of what species are depending on how it is
being applied. The problem is that our definition of species is a fairly
clear simplification of a much more complex interrelationship of life
forms over time.
Yeah. So simple Darwin said that some of the most brilliant scientists
he knew thought that humans should be divided up into anywhere from 2
to 63 species....
They were wrong, of course.
"Man has been studied more carefully than any other
animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst
capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or
race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five
(Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven
(Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins),
twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to
Burke." - Charles Darwin (Desc | | | |
