| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 05:29:17 AM |
| Object: |
God and Darwin |
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
God Darwin
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=God%20Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=God+Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=God+Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=God%20Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wg
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=God+Darwin&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
Charles Darwin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/769eb1482469eb87
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
26 Jan 2005 02:24:57 PM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE1D65E8.4935D%chenault@mindspring.com...
snip
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I really don't know if there was an Eve that did this thing. But the gist
of the story is 100% accurate, I am certain.
The gist of the story 100% accurate? How so? Proof?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 12:51:37 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I really don't know if there was an Eve that did this thing. But the gist
of the story is 100% accurate, I am certain.
The gist of the story 100% accurate? How so? Proof?
Looks like georgann is claiming that women are to blame for all of
the world's problems. It makes sense I guess, since she also believes
that the ruler of heaven is a man/male, and that the disobeying of his
commands is bad news...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
www.elroysemporium.com/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
27 Jan 2005 04:48:18 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Personally, I blame Eve. :p
Robibnikoff wrote:
Oh brother.
The really sad thing is that you actually believe this nonsense ;P
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I really don't know if there was an Eve that did this thing. But the gist
of the story is 100% accurate, I am certain.
Women are to blame for all the world's troubles?
That's mighty honest of you to admit!
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
www.elroysemporium.com/news
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 06:23:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:07:53 -0500, Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE1AF394.490B2%chenault@mindspring.com...
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Personally, I blame Eve. :p
Oh brother.
The really sad thing is that you actually believe this nonsense ;P
Talk about a crippled mind. Georgann displays the mental agility
of a three year old.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 08:45:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:23:20 -0600, TCS
<The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:07:53 -0500, Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE1AF394.490B2%chenault@mindspring.com...
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Personally, I blame Eve. :p
Oh brother.
The really sad thing is that you actually believe this nonsense ;P
Talk about a crippled mind. Georgann displays the mental agility
of a three year old.
A mentally defective three year old. My two year old great nephew is
more intelligent.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 09:40:30 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tjcbv05mp0psmi03uncdljr9r9crnrobhc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:23:20 -0600, TCS
<The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:07:53 -0500, Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com>
wrote:
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE1AF394.490B2%chenault@mindspring.com...
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Personally, I blame Eve. :p
Oh brother.
The really sad thing is that you actually believe this nonsense ;P
Talk about a crippled mind. Georgann displays the mental agility
of a three year old.
A mentally defective three year old. My two year old great nephew is
more intelligent.
Sadly, my five-year-old nephew is attending Catholic school and this is the
kind of thing they're shoving down his throat. I've looked over his
religion homework and it's mortifying :P
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 05:16:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:40:30 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> said in alt.atheism:
Sadly, my five-year-old nephew is attending Catholic school and this is the
kind of thing they're shoving down his throat. I've looked over his
religion homework and it's mortifying :P
Too bad you can't bring have parents charged with child abuse, but
"who will watch the watchers", eh?
--
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 09:41:43 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:23:20 -0600, TCS
<The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:07:53 -0500, Robibnikoff
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE1AF394.490B2%chenault@mindspring.com...
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Personally, I blame Eve. :p
Oh brother.
The really sad thing is that you actually believe this nonsense ;P
Talk about a crippled mind. Georgann displays the mental agility
of a three year old.
A mentally defective three year old. My two year old great nephew is
more intelligent.
The point about three year old children is they learn. An adult who is
stuck in a three year old mentality is something of a different, more
pathological, order.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 06:08:55 PM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE1AF394.490B2%chenault@mindspring.com...
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance
to
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Elroy Willis wrote:
It was perfect godly intelligence that created the mutations necessary to
come
up with ebola, aids, cancer, malaria, polio? Or do you blame those
things on
the devil?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Personally, I blame Eve. :p
Personally, if I actually believed this baloney, I'd blame the god that
allowed it all to happen and then cursed his creation for doing what he'd
already planned.
Talk about shitty parenting.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 07:14:01 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:BE1AF394.490B2%chenault@mindspring.com:
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes
with intelligence. A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Elroy Willis wrote:
It was perfect godly intelligence that created the mutations
necessary to come up with ebola, aids, cancer, malaria, polio? Or do
you blame those things on the devil?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Personally, I blame Eve. :p
Personally I blame the non-existance of a prime intelligence that could
have designed things to work reliably.
--
apatriot #23, aa #2179, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
27 Jan 2005 04:46:53 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance
to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Elroy Willis wrote:
It was perfect godly intelligence that created the mutations necessary to
come up with ebola, aids, cancer, malaria, polio? Or do you blame those
things on the devil?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Personally, I blame Eve. :p
All of the bad things in life are because some woman ate a forbidden
fruit? Don't you actually consider that a bit too simplistic to
swallow, or do you really even care? Why not believe the Pandora
story instead? At least she left hope in the box instead of having
to have some make-believe god-man die a bloody death on a stick to
give people some kind of hope. :)
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
www.elroysemporium.com/news
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Shelby" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 01:46:08 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance
to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence.
A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
It was perfect godly intelligence that created the mutations necessary
to come up with ebola, aids, cancer, malaria, polio? Or do you blame
those things on the devil?
why was does the perfect designer, who made the perfect immune system,
make the mistake of actually having that immune system be able to attack
its host organism in the forms of leukemia, multiple sclerosis, and
parkinson's?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 04:35:45 PM |
|
|
In article <25Sdnd_gpbzBzGjcRVn-qA@io.com> Joe Shelby <acroyear@NOSPAMio.com> writes:
Elroy Willis wrote:
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance
to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence.
A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
It was perfect godly intelligence that created the mutations necessary
to come up with ebola, aids, cancer, malaria, polio? Or do you blame
those things on the devil?
why was does the perfect designer, who made the perfect immune system,
make the mistake of actually having that immune system be able to attack
its host organism in the forms of leukemia, multiple sclerosis, and
parkinson's?
And ironically enough, the immune system is a perfect example of
the evolutionary process in action, and one that can be observed
in real time, so to speak. In this case it's resistance to
pathogens which evolves, not species, but the underlying
algorithm is exactly the same:
Step I: generation of new items by random processes
evolution of organisms: new genotypes result from random mutation
or genetic recombination.
evolution of resistance: new antibodies are generated by random shuffling
of the appropriate genes within the existing organism.
Step II: selection, followed by amplification
evolution of species: those best equipped to survive and leave more
offspring do so.
evolution of resistance: antibodies which happen to match some
protein on an invading pathogen stimulate the cloning
of many more B cells bearing the same antibody; B cell bearing
antibodies which don't match anything die out.
Result:
evolution of species: better adapted organisms or new species,
generated by a blind and unintelligent process.
evolution of resistance: immunity to pathogens never seen before,
generated by a blind and unintelligent process.
Those promoting evolution really should emphasize this similarity more.
Creationists claim that random processes and selection cannot lead
to anything useful or viable, but the immune system, using nothing
more than random generation followed by selection ceaselessly does
just that, blindly producing resistance to disease with a
speed and precision that the intelligent biochemist cannot match.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "TeaWrecks" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 01:31:30 AM |
|
|
A few years ago a dear friend died of cancer. In the course of trying
to understand this tragedy I learned a lot more about cancer than I
ever cared to. One of the things that most struck me (like a Mack
Truck, actually) was how similar it's course of growth is
(particularly in the course of pre-cancerous cells) to the steps of
Natural Selection as laid down by Darwin - and wonderfully restated by
Gould here:
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/selection/fullhouse.html
I've sort of rearranged the OP to be more in line with this, I've
directly quoted Gould in the section titles, and I've expanded upon
it (the OP) to reflect my thoughts on cancer as compared to Natural
Selection. (Keep in mind that I'm not a Medical or Science
Professional, and some of my reasoning may be specious.)
Step I: "All organisms tend to produce more offspring than can
possibly
survive."
Resistance and Cancer: both produce more individuals
than will
survive passing thru the 'gauntlet' of performing
their functions.
Step II: "Offspring vary among themselves, and are not carbon
copies
of an immutable type."
Evolution of organisms: new genotypes result from
random
mutation or genetic recombination.
Evolution of resistance: new antibodies are generated
by random
shuffling of the appropriate genes within the
existing organism.
Evolution of a Cancer: new pre-cancerous cells are
generated in the
course of random mutations within an existing cell.
Once the cells
become cancerous, they tend to mutate rather wildly,
creating lots
of variation.
Step III: "At least some of this variation is passed down by
inheritance
to future generations:" (was: selection, followed by
amplification)
evolution of species: those best equipped to survive
and leave more
offspring do so. (This statement kind of mashes the
last two steps
together.)
evolution of resistance: antibodies which happen to
match some
protein on an invading pathogen stimulate the cloning
of many more B
cells bearing the same antibody; B cell bearing
antibodies which don't
match anything die out.
Evolution of Resistance to the Immune System: cancer
cells that
happen to be more resistant to immune responses (the
local
environment), are able to survive and divide into new
cancer
cells, similar to the parent cells.
Step IV: Result:"If many offspring must die, and individuals in
all species
vary among themselves, then on average, survivors will
tend to be
those individuals with variations that are
fortuitously best suited to
changing local environments. Since heredity exists,
the offspring of
survivors will tend to resemble their successful
parents. The
accumulation of these favorable variants through time
will produce
evolutionary change."
evolution of species: better adapted organisms or new
species,
generated by a blind and unintelligent process.
evolution of resistance: immunity to pathogens never
seen before,
generated by a blind and unintelligent process.
Evolution of a Cancer: Many cells die in the course of
the growth of a
tumor, having succumbed to either fatal mutations or
the host's
defenses. But those that survive 'will tend to be
those individuals that
are fortuitously best suited' to thwart the host's
defenses (i.e. - the
local changing environment). They will pass these
characteristics to
future generations, which will also change. 'The
accumulation of these
favorable changes through time will produce' a fully
fledged cancer;
which has been generated by a blind, unguided and
unintelligent
process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A cell 'destined' to become a cancer cell, must pass through many
stages where the cell's own mechanisms either correct the damage to
the DNA, or cause the cell to die as a result of the damage.
Most daughter cells of the original cancer cells may be destroyed by
the immune system or die simply because they may be too damaged by
rampant mutation to survive. Of those that do survive, the next
generation of cancer cells must inherit the resistance to every assault
the host organism has thrown at it's parent cells thus far - if
even one of those traits is destroyed by further mutation, further
daughter cells may not survive a repeat of that particular type of
attack. Additional random mutation may also give rise to further
resistance. This gives the cancer 'organism' many different
strategies for survival.
There are many types of known cancers, and no two are exactly alike
(often even between individuals); each must pass through the gauntlet
of the host's immune system every step of the way - from the
original 'seed' cell containing the original mutation that was able
(by chance) to thwart the cell's correction mechanisms, all the way
to fully formed tumors releasing metastases and causing angiogenesis,
etc. Yet they all arise as a result of the same, unguided natural
process.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Shelby" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 05:33:20 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <25Sdnd_gpbzBzGjcRVn-qA@io.com> Joe Shelby <acroyear@NOSPAMio.com> writes:
And ironically enough, the immune system is a perfect example of
the evolutionary process in action, and one that can be observed
in real time, so to speak. In this case it's resistance to
pathogens which evolves, not species, but the underlying
algorithm is exactly the same:
Step I: generation of new items by random processes
evolution of organisms: new genotypes result from random mutation
or genetic recombination.
evolution of resistance: new antibodies are generated by random shuffling
of the appropriate genes within the existing organism.
Step II: selection, followed by amplification
evolution of species: those best equipped to survive and leave more
offspring do so.
evolution of resistance: antibodies which happen to match some
protein on an invading pathogen stimulate the cloning
of many more B cells bearing the same antibody; B cell bearing
antibodies which don't match anything die out.
Result:
evolution of species: better adapted organisms or new species,
generated by a blind and unintelligent process.
evolution of resistance: immunity to pathogens never seen before,
generated by a blind and unintelligent process.
Those promoting evolution really should emphasize this similarity more.
Creationists claim that random processes and selection cannot lead
to anything useful or viable, but the immune system, using nothing
more than random generation followed by selection ceaselessly does
just that, blindly producing resistance to disease with a
speed and precision that the intelligent biochemist cannot match.
yeah, but didn't you know the intelligent designer *designed* it that
way? :)
kidding aside, it would be interesting to read theories on the specifics
of how the first anti-body actually developed, and what was that
cell-type's job before the mutations created its new function. and from
there, how did the controlling cells (like the T cells that HIV attacks)
come into being.
any good books for the layman, or is that still in the high-science
realm where without a medical degree, you couldn't follow it?
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 06:35:07 PM |
|
|
In article <X4ednTG8UrgAG2jcRVn-1Q@io.com> Joe Shelby <acroyear@NOSPAMio.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <25Sdnd_gpbzBzGjcRVn-qA@io.com> Joe Shelby <acroyear@NOSPAMio.com> writes:
And ironically enough, the immune system is a perfect example of
the evolutionary process in action, and one that can be observed
in real time, so to speak. In this case it's resistance to
pathogens which evolves, not species, but the underlying
algorithm is exactly the same:
Step I: generation of new items by random processes
evolution of organisms: new genotypes result from random mutation
or genetic recombination.
evolution of resistance: new antibodies are generated by random shuffling
of the appropriate genes within the existing organism.
Step II: selection, followed by amplification
evolution of species: those best equipped to survive and leave more
offspring do so.
evolution of resistance: antibodies which happen to match some
protein on an invading pathogen stimulate the cloning
of many more B cells bearing the same antibody; B cell bearing
antibodies which don't match anything die out.
Result:
evolution of species: better adapted organisms or new species,
generated by a blind and unintelligent process.
evolution of resistance: immunity to pathogens never seen before,
generated by a blind and unintelligent process.
Those promoting evolution really should emphasize this similarity more.
Creationists claim that random processes and selection cannot lead
to anything useful or viable, but the immune system, using nothing
more than random generation followed by selection ceaselessly does
just that, blindly producing resistance to disease with a
speed and precision that the intelligent biochemist cannot match.
yeah, but didn't you know the intelligent designer *designed* it that
way? :)
kidding aside, it would be interesting to read theories on the specifics
of how the first anti-body actually developed, and what was that
cell-type's job before the mutations created its new function. and from
there, how did the controlling cells (like the T cells that HIV attacks)
come into being.
any good books for the layman, or is that still in the high-science
realm where without a medical degree, you couldn't follow it?
Um, beats me; what I wrote above was just off-the-top-of-my-head,
read-it-a-dozen-places kind of stuff. I think my overall impression
of this stuff came from Joel Davis' book "Defending the Body", and
I do recommend the book -- but it's fifteen years old now, and they'e
learned a LOT since then. Still, I bet the basics are still sound.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
28 Jan 2005 09:29:22 AM |
|
|
Joe Shelby <acroyear@NOSPAMio.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance
to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence.
A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
It was perfect godly intelligence that created the mutations necessary
to come up with ebola, aids, cancer, malaria, polio? Or do you blame
those things on the devil?
why was does the perfect designer, who made the perfect immune system,
make the mistake of actually having that immune system be able to attack
its host organism in the forms of leukemia, multiple sclerosis, and
parkinson's?
Beats me. Ask a god-believer and see what they say. I'm betting
they'll probably blame it on some pretended fall of man or the devil
instead of blaming it on their god.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
www.elroysemporium.com/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Inparticular" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 01:21:37 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Joe Shelby <acroyear@NOSPAMio.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance
to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence.
A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
It was perfect godly intelligence that created the mutations necessary
to come up with ebola, aids, cancer, malaria, polio? Or do you blame
those things on the devil?
why was does the perfect designer, who made the perfect immune system,
make the mistake of actually having that immune system be able to attack
its host organism in the forms of leukemia, multiple sclerosis, and
parkinson's?
<Piggy backing>
Only one of the above can be thought of as "attacks" on the host
organism by the immune system. Leukemia is a *cancer* of immune cells.
Rarely do they have any immune related functions. Parkinson's is a
neurodegenerative disease that is caused by the selective death of
certain brain neurons. The cause is not known. The clinical signs of MS
are due to autoreactive immune cells, but the current thinking is that
the disease is initiated by an as yet unknown virus.
Still, the point remains; autoimmune diseases, from Type I diabetes to
Lupus are arguments against perfect design of the immune system.
Beats me. Ask a god-believer and see what they say. I'm betting
they'll probably blame it on some pretended fall of man or the devil
instead of blaming it on their god.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 10:24:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:46:08 -0500, Joe Shelby <acroyear@NOSPAMio.com>
wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance
to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence.
A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
It was perfect godly intelligence that created the mutations necessary
to come up with ebola, aids, cancer, malaria, polio? Or do you blame
those things on the devil?
why was does the perfect designer, who made the perfect immune system,
make the mistake of actually having that immune system be able to attack
its host organism in the forms of leukemia, multiple sclerosis, and
parkinson's?
/mocking theists
Because it wants to show how much it 'loves' them, and to 'show his
wonders(tm).'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 03:57:04 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
No need to do experiments, nature is one big experiment. It's just a matter
of interpreting the experiment correctly, and recognize that ID is a fact.
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance to
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
And what is the origin of this (rather impressive) intelligence?
-E
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
I don't know where science would have been if it hadn't questioned its own
truths over and over again. Besides, evolution is not a truth, but a theory,
abd a "questionable" one, indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 11:55:27 AM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
No need to do experiments, nature is one big experiment. It's just a matter
of interpreting the experiment correctly, and recognize that ID is a fact.
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance to
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Because there is no evidence for it and no evidence contradicting nonID
evolution.
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
I don't know where science would have been if it hadn't questioned its own
truths over and over again. Besides, evolution is not a truth, but a theory,
abd a "questionable" one, indeed.
The ToE is better supported and it's underlying mechanisms explained
than the theory of gravity.
Try a simple experiment, gather a group of physicists and an equal sized
group of biologists. Now ask each physicists to explain the underlying
cause of gravity then ask how the effects of gravity work across
distance. Gotten a lot of vague answers and/or "I have no idea"? That is
what is to be expected. Go over to the biologists and ask each one to
explain the underlying causes of evolution then ask about how evolution
works over time. Get a lot of specifics with some quibbles on details?
Exactly what can be expected.
If you weren't so busy reading holocaust denial websites you would
already know that the ToE is one of the very most fully explained and
supported theories in all of science.
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McHale" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 12:54:44 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
No need to do experiments, nature is one big experiment. It's just a
matter
of interpreting the experiment correctly, and recognize that ID is a
fact.
Nature can be treated as an experiment, astronomers pretty much of
necessity do it all the time. That being said, it is still based on
prediction and testing. What specific predictions does ID make that
will necessarily produce different results than evolution?
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with
intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
From a philosophical perspective I am sure many evolutionists are
willing, perhaps even eager to give God a role as a guiding force
behind evolution, however we are not talking about philosophy but
science and requires proof. If you want to write God into the Science
Text Book you have to come up with testable theories. Since God by
definition is Omnicient and Omnipotent, I think it will be very hard to
design a test for him unless he wants one.
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing
that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
I don't know where science would have been if it hadn't questioned
its own
truths over and over again. Besides, evolution is not a truth, but a
theory,
abd a "questionable" one, indeed.
Science does question its own theories over and over again, but in a
very rigorous manner. To take an example from the flip side; The
British Astronomer Fred Hoyle was an avowed atheist who positively
hated Big Bang Cosmology (all the various theories that get the
Universe Started with a rapid expansion from what is essentially a
point) because he felt that it was designed by theists to make us
accept the concept of God (The Big Bang was first proposed by a
Catholic Priest). For years he fought a rear guard action, arguing
instead for his Steady State Hypothesis. In the 1970s he regretfully
had to abandon the Steady State Hypothesis because of lack of evidence
for his position and mounting evidence for the Big Bang. He never
stopped trying to find an alternative to the Big Bang (which is a good
thing) but he never again claimed that he had a theory that was a fully
viable alternative to what was being offered by Big Bang Cosmology.
In any case, Hoyle could have simply continued to resist the Big Bang
on the grounds that he did not like its philosophical implications but
he knew that he didn't have a leg to stand on scientifically.
Creationists essentially start from the same position Hoyle did
(disliking a theory based on philosophical grounds) but they refuse to
abandon their position, even provisionally, despite the fact that the
weight of the evidence is against them.
--
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 03:51:46 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a
"theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
No need to do experiments, nature is one big experiment. It's just a
matter
of interpreting the experiment correctly, and recognize that ID is a
fact.
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with
intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Bravo! Now, what can we learn about the creator from the evidence?
One thing that is plain to see, is that life always comes from life.
Every organism living today comes from a parent organism; we can even
observe the birthing process. This intelligent creator doesn't seem to
be doing any creating anymore. Obviously, he is dead.
So now we must figure out when and how the creator died. Any
suggestions?
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 05:27:14 PM |
|
|
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1106603506.948265.292330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
snipping
Bravo! Now, what can we learn about the creator from the evidence?
One thing that is plain to see, is that life always comes from life.
Every organism living today comes from a parent organism; we can even
observe the birthing process. This intelligent creator doesn't seem to
be doing any creating anymore. Obviously, he is dead.
So now we must figure out when and how the creator died. Any
suggestions?
Allergic reaction after creating peanuts?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 07:27:18 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@nospam.net> wrote in
news:mvfJd.6121$cZ1.756@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1106603506.948265.292330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
snipping
Bravo! Now, what can we learn about the creator from the evidence?
One thing that is plain to see, is that life always comes from life.
Every organism living today comes from a parent organism; we can even
observe the birthing process. This intelligent creator doesn't seem
to be doing any creating anymore. Obviously, he is dead.
So now we must figure out when and how the creator died. Any
suggestions?
Allergic reaction after creating peanuts?
DJT
I think you are being a bit goobercentric there. What about filberts, or
brasil nuts, or cashews, or even creationuts? God could have choked on
any one of them.
--
apatriot #23, aa #2179, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies theories to fit the observed evidence.
Creationists emotionally modify the evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 08:50:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:27:14 GMT, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@nospam.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1106603506.948265.292330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
So now we must figure out when and how the creator died. Any
suggestions?
Allergic reaction after creating peanuts?
Missed me. I just finished my tea.
But it was FUNNY!
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 09:42:59 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:5ucbv0d9anv0sg598trs3o7eqhf2q58ivb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:27:14 GMT, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@nospam.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1106603506.948265.292330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
So now we must figure out when and how the creator died. Any
suggestions?
Allergic reaction after creating peanuts?
Missed me. I just finished my tea.
But it was FUNNY!
Please! There's a kid in my nephew & nieces's school that's SO highly
allergic to peanuts, that none of the kids in her class can ever have peanut
butter sandwiches for lunch EVER - Whatever forbid, if this kid comes in
contact with a crumb, it can kill her. Can you believe that? It totally
sucks for one of my SILs because one of the few things her son would eat for
lunch was a peanut butter sandwich :P
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 05:19:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:42:59 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> said in alt.atheism:
Please! There's a kid in my nephew & nieces's school that's SO highly
allergic to peanuts, that none of the kids in her class can ever have peanut
butter sandwiches for lunch EVER - Whatever forbid, if this kid comes in
contact with a crumb, it can kill her. Can you believe that? It totally
sucks for one of my SILs because one of the few things her son would eat for
lunch was a peanut butter sandwich :P
Is the kid allergic to peanuts or to nuts in general?
Filbert butter is delicious, as is sunflower seed butter or pumpkin
seed butter (substitute your favorite nut or seed), and they only take
a few seconds to whip up.
--
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 06:09:23 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:prkdv0hfin0qekl280qqkq69fddurcn5se@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:42:59 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> said in alt.atheism:
Please! There's a kid in my nephew & nieces's school that's SO highly
allergic to peanuts, that none of the kids in her class can ever have
peanut
butter sandwiches for lunch EVER - Whatever forbid, if this kid comes in
contact with a crumb, it can kill her. Can you believe that? It totally
sucks for one of my SILs because one of the few things her son would eat
for
lunch was a peanut butter sandwich :P
Is the kid allergic to peanuts or to nuts in general?
Hmmmm, I honestly don't know. I think just peanuts.
Filbert butter is delicious, as is sunflower seed butter or pumpkin
seed butter (substitute your favorite nut or seed), and they only take
a few seconds to whip up.
Really? I'll have to check that out ;)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 06:52:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:23 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:prkdv0hfin0qekl280qqkq69fddurcn5se@4ax.com...
Filbert butter is delicious, as is sunflower seed butter or pumpkin
seed butter (substitute your favorite nut or seed), and they only take
a few seconds to whip up.
Really? I'll have to check that out ;)
Throw some in a food processor (the little ones do better with small
quantities). Pulse until the consistency is right. (It might take a
few drops of oil to make it work - depends on what kind you're
making.)
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
