| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Clancy McDonald kookwoman1\@kooksof theworld.net" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2008 07:04:36 PM |
| Object: |
Is Evolution a Fact? |
“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many
scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things
may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with
subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly,
recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal
breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists
attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name
implies what many scientists assert—that these minute changes furnish
the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has
observed, which they call macroevolution.
You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his
famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin
said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or
so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved—by means of “extremely
slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on
earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and
produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes
into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution.
To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small
changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big
changes over long periods of time?’
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.
Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be
considered a fact?
.
|
|
| User: "Killiam" |
|
| Title: What Scientists Are Saying |
22 Jan 2008 04:19:46 PM |
|
|
In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: “Since
1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion:
man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the
modern evolutionists thought most probable.”
Other evolutionists agreed. In 1971 a professor of genetics from the
University of California, G. L. Stebbins, an evolutionist, reflected
their general attitude when he said: “Every account of human evolution
written before 1950 is already or will soon be obsolete.”
Thus, by 1972 newer explanations of man’s origin had developed among
evolutionists. They had abandoned many of their past ideas, and were
confident that the new explanations were “fact.” But these newer ideas
had barely become accepted when they too came into question. One aspect
received an especially rude jolt because of evidence that came to light
in late 1972.
Note a few of the many news items that appeared in November of that
year: “A large section of the story of human evolution will need
revision after the disclosures yesterday.” (London Times) “Existing
theories of the evolution of man have been thrown into disarray.” (The
Guardian, England) “The accepted theory of human evolution could easily
be upset because it is based on only a few ancient skulls.” (New York
Daily News) And the London Daily Mail declared that the latest evidence
“could cause the biggest upset in science since Darwin said man had
descended from the apes.”
Yet, all such statements resulted from only one line of evidence
discovered late in 1972. There are other lines of evidence that are even
more significant. Together, these have caused a growing number of people
in science to question the explanations evolutionists give.
The magazine The American Biology Teacher said: “Various well known
scientists express their views ranging from educated caution, to
question, and on to direct opposition to the theory.” The English
magazine New Scientist stated: “It is proving particularly difficult to
understand the evolution of man . . . We know too little of the timing
or mechanisms of evolution, nor is there enough evidence from fossil
material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”
The British medical journal On Call reported: “Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible.” And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: “The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn’t make sense in view of today’s
knowledge.”
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
22 Jan 2008 05:48:55 PM |
|
|
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn5q65$ceg$3@news.albasani.net...
In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: "Since
1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion:
man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the
modern evolutionists thought most probable."
All that shows is that the details of evolution as a theory (such as the
timing for when things happened) are themselves evolving as we learn more.
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory, and as the
best explanation for how life arrived at the state is it in now. Serious
scientists in the field do not doubt that evolution happened (and happens)
... they only differ in the details.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
22 Jan 2008 07:02:41 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13pd07anq0coe99@corp.supernews.com...
"Killiam" IMPOESONATED by JABRIOL (Antonio) <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote
in message news:fn5q65$ceg$3@news.albasani.net...
In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: "Since
1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion:
man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the
modern evolutionists thought most probable."
All that shows is that the details of evolution as a theory (such as the
timing for when things happened) are themselves evolving as we learn more.
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory, and as the
best explanation for how life arrived at the state is it in now. Serious
scientists in the field do not doubt that evolution happened (and happens)
.. they only differ in the details.\
Don't bother replying to Jabriol's copy and past Watchtower literature. He
doesn't read replies or he'll only reply with more copy and past crap.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
05 Feb 2008 12:24:05 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13pd07anq0coe99@corp.supernews.com...
| "Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
| news:fn5q65$ceg$3@news.albasani.net...
| >
| >
| > In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: "Since
| > 1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion:
| > man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the
| > modern evolutionists thought most probable."
|
| All that shows is that the details of evolution as a theory (such as the
| timing for when things happened) are themselves evolving as we learn more.
|
| Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory, and as the
| best explanation for how life arrived at the state is it in now. Serious
| scientists in the field do not doubt that evolution happened (and happens)
| .. they only differ in the details.
OH! i get it now. Everyone agrees there is a ball, but they disagree on its
color, size, shape..
|
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
05 Feb 2008 05:13:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:24:05 -0600, "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13pd07anq0coe99@corp.supernews.com...
| "Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
| news:fn5q65$ceg$3@news.albasani.net...
| >
| >
| > In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: "Since
| > 1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion:
| > man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the
| > modern evolutionists thought most probable."
|
| All that shows is that the details of evolution as a theory (such as the
| timing for when things happened) are themselves evolving as we learn more.
|
| Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory, and as the
| best explanation for how life arrived at the state is it in now. Serious
| scientists in the field do not doubt that evolution happened (and happens)
| .. they only differ in the details.
OH! i get it now. Everyone agrees there is a ball, but they disagree on its
color, size, shape..
Evolution is God's way.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Killiam" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 04:46:48 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 05:20:29 PM |
|
|
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn8g4s$69e$1@news.albasani.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
In science nothing is ever proved as a fact .. just not refuted.
Obviously you know nothing of science and the scientific method.
It is religions that claim absolute truths without proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 08:22:39 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13pfiu21s7vcgca@corp.supernews.com...
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn8g4s$69e$1@news.albasani.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
In science nothing is ever proved as a fact .. just not refuted.
Obviously you know nothing of science and the scientific method.
Jabriol (impersonating Killiam) has been told this now for 15 years and just
comes back again and again with the same old arguments. He gets the same
replies yet learns nothing, then he's back to start it all over again.
It is religions that claim absolute truths without proof.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zherald Trainer" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 05:51:26 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn8g4s$69e$1@news.albasani.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
In science nothing is ever proved as a fact .. just not refuted.
Obviously you know nothing of science and the scientific method.
It is religions that claim absolute truths without proof.
It seem you don't know much about science neither. "Proof" is a
mathematical concept unless you like whiskey. Evidence is another
matter. The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens;
based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test
the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see
if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method
followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no
clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing
nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.
Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in
the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own:
namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved
to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval
past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most
particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that
Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all.
.. . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual
credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is
creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to
me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the
experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin,
1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying (JABBER TROLL ALERT!) |
23 Jan 2008 08:25:38 PM |
|
|
"Zherald Trainer" <master@tardis.uk> wrote in message
news:fn8ju3$frk$1@news.albasani.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn8g4s$69e$1@news.albasani.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
In science nothing is ever proved as a fact .. just not refuted.
Obviously you know nothing of science and the scientific method.
It is religions that claim absolute truths without proof.
It seem you don't know much about science neither. "Proof" is a
mathematical concept unless you like whiskey. Evidence is another matter.
The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on
those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory
by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the
predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed
by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no
clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing
nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.
Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the
Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in
the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own:
namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved
to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The
Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most
particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian
evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of
the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p.
828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation.
I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we
must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence
supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
You've posted this ancient Watchtower out of context ***** at last 50
times in the past 15 years Jabbers. No one buys it now and no one bought it
years ago.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 11:36:41 PM |
|
|
"Zherald Trainer" <master@tardis.uk> wrote in message
news:fn8ju3$frk$1@news.albasani.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn8g4s$69e$1@news.albasani.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
In science nothing is ever proved as a fact .. just not refuted.
Obviously you know nothing of science and the scientific method.
It is religions that claim absolute truths without proof.
It seem you don't know much about science neither. "Proof" is a
mathematical concept
But not a scienific one .. there is no "proof" in science. There is
testing, and prediction. And there is refutation. No theory is ever proved
correct, only *not* refuted.
unless you like whiskey. Evidence is another matter. The "scientific
method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations,
form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further
observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based
on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who
believe in and teach evolution?
Yeup .. but there is never proof. Only lack of dis-proof. In the
scientific method that is the best one can hope for... that nothing the
theory predicts is refuted. The longer, and more often, that happens, the
greater confidence we have that the theory is a correct model for reality.
[snip waffle from creationists]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Hall" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 11:22:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:47:37 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
<andrelieven@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:46pm, Killiam <anotherca...@sock.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
Utterly worng. ( Worng, so bad that its not even wrong. )
See Kitzmiller V/ Dover Decision...
Andre
Hi, Andre. How's that moderated soc.froots coming along?
--
Lits *****#10
Usenet Ruiner #3
Top ***** On The Net #2
Most Hated Usenetizen of all time #2
Hammer of Thor - August 2005
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, Trainer of Steve 'BowTurd' Young
COOSN-075-07-81342
Brainwashed Follower of Art Deco #1
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?=" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
24 Jan 2008 12:28:46 AM |
|
|
"Fred Hall" <fkhall@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fn975m$mk6$8@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:47:37 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
<andrelieven@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:46 pm, Killiam <anotherca...@sock.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
Utterly worng. ( Worng, so bad that its not even wrong. )
See Kitzmiller V/ Dover Decision...
Andre
Hi, Andre. How's that moderated soc.froots coming along?
I can't speak for him but the moderated pond group got rid of Jabbers for
good. ;-)
--
SA.........
Reality check: http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
25 Jan 2008 12:39:37 AM |
|
|
"~ Sbl ~" <Sable666@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47983024$0$1348$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Fred Hall" <fkhall@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fn975m$mk6$8@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:47:37 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
<andrelieven@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:46 pm, Killiam <anotherca...@sock.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing discovered so far has disproved Evolution as a theory,
Nothing has proved it to be a fact neither.
Utterly worng. ( Worng, so bad that its not even wrong. )
See Kitzmiller V/ Dover Decision...
Andre
Hi, Andre. How's that moderated soc.froots coming along?
I can't speak for him but the moderated pond group got rid of Jabbers for
good. ;-)
--
SA.........
Reality check: http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
========================================
you should protest to the american public school system, that
teaches that man is a mere animal, and when his biological urge occur, he
will act
acordingly.
Or does anyone denies That Humans are nothing more than evolved super ape..
is Morals taught in school? in science?
or are morals part of religion that is taught as myth...
Rape is a very horrible thing,
what is more horrible, is that the teaching of evolution teaches kids to
take a chance..
How many rape victims will ever be able to take thier victims to court?
how many got away with it? and will never be caught, because they learn that
human are here by mere chance,
and you only got one life to live. Take that chance, teache evolution.. and
hence rapist take the chance and get away with it.
My wife was raped.. she could not ever Identify who did it..
in new york my oldest "daughter" was raped at 13, her rapist got away with
it.. the was mentally damage so bad, that I had to remove her from the
household.. 38,000 dollar for just to weeks at a juvinile facilty for
nothing..
this is what evolution teaches...
and people on TO, say that I force out the home, when they do not have all
the facts..
I would castrate the ***** who did it..
but I wil lnot have that oportunity..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?=" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 08:27:41 PM |
|
|
"ken" <flakey714@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b23a122d-69b6-456c-8e0e-1df84d22f271@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Can't help but to notice the latest reference came from 1972, when
most of us were still using slide rules. I have a feeling that science
has progressed quite a bit since then.
That's all Jabbers can glean from the Watchtower CDs and websites. He keeps
posting the same old crap and he gets the same old answers and round and
round it goes............
--
SA...........
http://silentlambs.org
http://www.cultwatch.com/jw.html
www.freeminds.org
http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{> ~~~~ }<((({> ~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "crashbee" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
22 Jan 2008 11:08:21 PM |
|
|
All I know is that the most ancient of my ancestors were humans, people.
People people, not ape people or monkey people. As for those who
believe and insist on attempting to prove that their ancient ancestors were
apes living in trees in a jungle, so be it. Mine weren't.
"ken" <flakey714@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b23a122d-69b6-456c-8e0e-1df84d22f271@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:19 pm, Killiam <anotherca...@sock.net> wrote:
In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: "Since
1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion:
man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the
modern evolutionists thought most probable."
Other evolutionists agreed. In 1971 a professor of genetics from the
University of California, G. L. Stebbins, an evolutionist, reflected
their general attitude when he said: "Every account of human evolution
written before 1950 is already or will soon be obsolete."
Thus, by 1972 newer explanations of man's origin had developed among
evolutionists. They had abandoned many of their past ideas, and were
confident that the new explanations were "fact." But these newer ideas
had barely become accepted when they too came into question. One aspect
received an especially rude jolt because of evidence that came to light
in late 1972.
Note a few of the many news items that appeared in November of that
year: "A large section of the story of human evolution will need
revision after the disclosures yesterday." (London Times) "Existing
theories of the evolution of man have been thrown into disarray." (The
Guardian, England) "The accepted theory of human evolution could easily
be upset because it is based on only a few ancient skulls." (New York
Daily News) And the London Daily Mail declared that the latest evidence
"could cause the biggest upset in science since Darwin said man had
descended from the apes."
Yet, all such statements resulted from only one line of evidence
discovered late in 1972. There are other lines of evidence that are even
more significant. Together, these have caused a growing number of people
in science to question the explanations evolutionists give.
The magazine The American Biology Teacher said: "Various well known
scientists express their views ranging from educated caution, to
question, and on to direct opposition to the theory." The English
magazine New Scientist stated: "It is proving particularly difficult to
understand the evolution of man . . . We know too little of the timing
or mechanisms of evolution, nor is there enough evidence from fossil
material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy."
The British medical journal On Call reported: "Evolution cannot be
supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . .
and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the
widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible." And
Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: "The
typical evolutionary explanation doesn't make sense in view of today's
knowledge."
Can't help but to notice the latest reference came from 1972, when
most of us were still using slide rules. I have a feeling that science
has progressed quite a bit since then
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?=" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 08:30:02 PM |
|
|
"crashbee" <crashbee@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:9Zzlj.395$R84.320@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
All I know is that the most ancient of my ancestors were humans, people.
People people, not ape people or monkey people. As for those who
believe and insist on attempting to prove that their ancient ancestors
were
apes living in trees in a jungle, so be it. Mine weren't.
What and where is your evidence for such a claim? Surely you have evidence.
--
SA......
The best defense to logic is ignorance
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
~ Carl Sagan ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "crashbee" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
24 Jan 2008 05:05:48 PM |
|
|
"~ Sbl ~" <Sable666@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4797f833$0$1344$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"crashbee" <crashbee@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:9Zzlj.395$R84.320@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
All I know is that the most ancient of my ancestors were humans, people.
People people, not ape people or monkey people. As for those who
believe and insist on attempting to prove that their ancient ancestors
were
apes living in trees in a jungle, so be it. Mine weren't.
What and where is your evidence for such a claim? Surely you have
evidence.
--
SA......
The best defense to logic is ignorance
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
~ Carl Sagan ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
I don't really have to prove anything to anybody.
I'm the evidence and I'm right here, right now, on planet earth.
I don't need to prove anything else. And, if you demand that I
believe your ancestors evolved from some primordial slime
and then to apes living in a jungle, you don't have to prove it
to me.
"Have you ever heard anything about God, Topsy?"
The child looked bewildered, but grinned as usual.
"Do you know who made you?" "Nobody, as I knows
on," said the child, with a short laugh. The idea appeared
to amuse her considerably; for her eyes twinkled, and she
added, "I spect I grow'd. Don't think nobody never made
me." [UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, Chapter XX, published
in 1852]
Think Topsy was maybe the first evolutionist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "crashbee" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
24 Jan 2008 05:18:20 PM |
|
|
Typical cat-herder drivel.
You can't prove that Darwin isn't a fictional character.
All you know is what someone wrote or said.
SkyEyes ~ sounds like some kind of cyberian aberration.
Do you like bananas and peanuts in the shell?
"SkyEyes" <skyeyes9@cox.net> wrote in message
news:907327ee-e364-45ce-9593-221659e77418@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 4:05 pm, "crashbee" <crash...@ameritech.net> wrote:
"~ Sbl ~" <Sable...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:4797f833$0$1344$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"crashbee" <crash...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:9Zzlj.395$R84.320@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
All I know is that the most ancient of my ancestors were humans,
people.
People people, not ape people or monkey people. As for those who
believe and insist on attempting to prove that their ancient ancestors
were
apes living in trees in a jungle, so be it. Mine weren't.
What and where is your evidence for such a claim? Surely you have
evidence.
--
SA......
The best defense to logic is ignorance
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
~ Carl Sagan ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
I don't really have to prove anything to anybody.
I'm the evidence and I'm right here, right now, on planet earth.
I don't need to prove anything else. And, if you demand that I
believe your ancestors evolved from some primordial slime
and then to apes living in a jungle, you don't have to prove it
to me.
"Have you ever heard anything about God, Topsy?"
The child looked bewildered, but grinned as usual.
"Do you know who made you?" "Nobody, as I knows
on," said the child, with a short laugh. The idea appeared
to amuse her considerably; for her eyes twinkled, and she
added, "I spect I grow'd. Don't think nobody never made
me." [UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, Chapter XX, published
in 1852]
Think Topsy was maybe the first evolutionist?
No, I think Topsy is a fictional character, just like your god.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Adam And Eve |
23 Jan 2008 08:36:15 PM |
|
|
Admittedly, the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is very simple. It
states that God created man’s body out of the elements of the earth and
then proceeded “to blow into his nostrils the breath of life.” Later,
with a part of man’s body as a basis, a woman was created, whom the man
could appropriately describe as “bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh.”—Genesis 2:7, 23.
Now, should the account’s simplicity prejudice us against it? If
something adheres to facts it need not be complicated to be true. And
many scientists say the Genesis claim that all humans had a single
source, not several, is factual.
Many people reject the Adam-and-Eve story because they feel that in
evolution they have found a more convincing explanation of how human
life came about.
Some of these people do not necessarily deny God’s existence. They may
feel that it is quite possible to reconcile the Bible account with
evolutionary beliefs.
For example, the Austrian Prager-Stemberger Bible commentary supports
this view, saying: “Whether man appeared at the end of a certain
evolutionary process and whether the first human being was just one or a
group—to both questions the Genesis text gives no definite answer.” Some
religious scholars, even “various Southern Baptist seminary professors,”
agree according to a recent newsmagazine. They suggest that “Adam and
Eve might be symbols for primordial mankind rather than the first human
beings.” But why do some try to reconcile the Bible’s creation account
with evolution?
This is perhaps due to the way many scientists present evolution—as an
established fact. For example, N. V. Timofeeff-Ressovsky, Soviet
scientist, claims: “Evolution’s existence . . . in the world around us
no longer needs to be proved.”
Thus, faced with what is called the fact of evolution, the sincere Bible
student seeks a reasonable explanation. ‘If Adam and Eve were not real
individuals,’ he may reason, ‘but only fictional representations of
early man, then the Bible’s claim that God originally created life could
be reconciled with the scientific claim that man has evolved.’
It may sound reasonable, but is it true? Evolutionists, if honest, must
concede that they have been unable to prove their theory, even though
they are quite adamant about believing it. One of them, writing in the
German magazine Natur, admits that “our explanations for evolution are
inadequate. . . . For the time being evolution’s background . . . is
still an unsolved riddle.” He quotes Adolf Portmann, a Swiss zoologist,
who acknowledges that his lifetime of research has failed to turn up any
real explanations.
However, many sincere persons have found that the Bible offers
explanations. They have found it to be consistently correct and
reliable. This helps us to understand why many sincere Bible students
refuse to reinterpret the Adam-and-Eve account so as to fit it in with
the unproved theory of Evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam And Eve |
24 Jan 2008 11:09:55 AM |
|
|
"Mike Johannson" <manspants@toilet.us> wrote in message
news:fn8tj3$489$1@news.albasani.net...
Admittedly, the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is very simple. It states
that God created man's body out of the elements of the earth and then
proceeded "to blow into his nostrils the breath of life." Later, with a
part of man's body as a basis, a woman was created, whom the man could
appropriately describe as "bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh."-Genesis 2:7, 23.
Now, should the account's simplicity prejudice us against it?
No, the fact that it's a myth should.
If you think you came from a dirt man and a rib woman, that's your problem.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam And Eve |
24 Jan 2008 12:30:53 PM |
|
|
In article <5vrv2iF1nvrtsU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Mike Johannson" <manspants@toilet.us> wrote in message
news:fn8tj3$489$1@news.albasani.net...
Admittedly, the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is very simple. It states
that God created man's body out of the elements of the earth and then
proceeded "to blow into his nostrils the breath of life." Later, with a
part of man's body as a basis, a woman was created, whom the man could
appropriately describe as "bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh."-Genesis 2:7, 23.
Now, should the account's simplicity prejudice us against it?
No, the fact that it's a myth should.
i asume you cant prove your assertion
in other words
liar liar pants on fire
If you think you came from a dirt man and a rib woman, that's your problem.
you are a fluke of the universe
you have no right to be here
and whether you can hear
the universe is laughing at you
behind your back
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam And Eve |
24 Jan 2008 06:46:01 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mike Johannson" <manspants@toilet.us> wrote in message
news:fn8tj3$489$1@news.albasani.net...
Admittedly, the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is very simple. It states
that God created man's body out of the elements of the earth and then
proceeded "to blow into his nostrils the breath of life." Later, with a
part of man's body as a basis, a woman was created, whom the man could
appropriately describe as "bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh."-Genesis 2:7, 23.
Now, should the account's simplicity prejudice us against it?
No, the fact that it's a myth should.
If you think you came from a dirt man and a rib woman, that's your problem.
When you die a rot, and you become dust, that will be yours.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam And Eve |
23 Jan 2008 11:33:40 PM |
|
|
*****, Antonio.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam And Eve |
23 Jan 2008 08:43:58 PM |
|
|
Mike Johannson wrote:
(snip)
It may sound reasonable, but is it true? Evolutionists, if honest, must
concede that they have been unable to prove their theory, even though
they are quite adamant about believing it. One of them, writing in the
German magazine Natur, admits that “our explanations for evolution are
inadequate. . . . For the time being evolution’s background . . . is
still an unsolved riddle.” He quotes Adolf Portmann, a Swiss zoologist,
who acknowledges that his lifetime of research has failed to turn up any
real explanations.
Full citation please.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam And Eve |
24 Jan 2008 12:32:58 AM |
|
|
http://silentlambs.org
http://www.cultwatch.com/jw.html
www.freeminds.org
http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Watchtower Elders Manual
The best defense to logic is ignorance
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Killiam" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 04:52:39 PM |
|
|
crashbee wrote:
All I know is that the most ancient of my ancestors were humans, people.
People people, not ape people or monkey people. As for those who
believe and insist on attempting to prove that their ancient ancestors were
apes living in trees in a jungle, so be it. Mine weren't.
Per evolution people are apes. They are also bananas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scientists Are Saying |
23 Jan 2008 04:54:56 PM |
|
|
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn8gfr$69e$3@news.albasani.net...
crashbee wrote:
All I know is that the most ancient of my ancestors were humans,
people.
People people, not ape people or monkey people. As for those who
believe and insist on attempting to prove that their ancient
ancestors were
apes living in trees in a jungle, so be it. Mine weren't.
Per evolution people are apes.
Col. Jake "The Missing Link" found in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps.
HJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colonel Jake" |
|
| Title: "AUK's der'Office of Illucidus Maximus" |
23 Jan 2008 06:00:12 PM |
|
|
*we will all kneel and bow our heads*
[xYx]"All Hail Master Pink My Instructor"[xYx]
[xYx] [xYx]
[xYx] "Pinku-Sensei The Great One" [xYx]
*now we diligently pray*
[xYx] "Goddess Kali Goddess Of Strength" [xYx]
[xYx] [xYx]
[xYx] "Our Divine Goddess Of Usenet" [xYx]
<newsgroups added>
COlOnel Jake Enterprises
Presents
http://www.coloneljake.com/pages/page014/
--
High Speed Internet Connection
http://www.coloneljake.com/pages/page200/
Dialup Internet Connection
http://www.coloneljake.com/pages/page201/
Recipe of the Month (January 2008)
http://www.coloneljake.com/pages/page013/
*thank you Master Pink and in the name of Goddess Kali*
http://www.coloneljake.com/audios/000A/
*so be it*
,.,
:And then some...
`^'^
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colonel Jake" |
|
| Title: "BAM1BAM" "Honest John a.k.a. John "C"!!!..." -- AUK's der'IMPEACHED - BROTHER SUCKER -- |
23 Jan 2008 06:05:41 PM |
|
|
*we will all kneel and bow our heads*
[xYx]"All Hail Master Pink My Instructor"[xYx]
[xYx] [xYx]
[xYx] "Pinku-Sensei The Great One" [xYx]
*now we diligently pray*
[xYx] "Goddess Kali Goddess Of Strength" [xYx]
[xYx] [xYx]
[xYx] "Our Divine Goddess Of Usenet" [xYx]
What are you?,
"Saying, John?!?!?! (net.dead fred),...., get, a, lip, on, it!!!..."
COlOnel Jake Enterprises
Presents
http://www.coloneljake.com/BAM1BAM/HJC01/
--
High Speed Internet Connection
http://www.coloneljake.com/pages/page200/
Dialup Internet Connection
http://www.coloneljake.com/pages/page201/
Recipe of the Month (January 2008)
http://www.coloneljake.com/pages/page013/
GoD HATES FAGS
http://www.coloneljake.com/videos/004A/
*thank you Master Pink and in the name of Goddess Kali*
http://www.coloneljake.com/audios/000A/
*so be it*
,.,
:And then some...
`^'^
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
