| 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: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
20 Jan 2008 07:42:08 PM |
|
|
The February 15 "internal" Watchtower has a slightly new interpretation
of "this generation." It is simply some of the worst stuff I have ever
seen. Of course the Governing Body, or whoever wrote this nonsense, is still
holding on to the 1914 date. But beyond this, they argue essentially
that the "this generation" was the generation to whom Jesus was
speaking-that is the church class-but then they go on to assert that
the term applies to the remnant throughout the ages and those alive
today. So they have continued to unchain "this generation" from 1914 and
make the telos or "final end" indefinite but, as always, "soon."
Interestingly, they play around with Greek words about which they
evidently have no real understanding. They continue to thing that
parousia always means "presence," ignoring what is said in lexicons and
Kittel's Dictionary of the New Testament. It is terribly naïve to
assume that Greek words, any more than English words, always have only
one meaning. Context, as well as the historical usage of a word,
determines meaning, not some group's warped eschatology.
Laughably, they try to separate the meaning of syntelia from telos. They
use the example of a speaker at the kingdom hall who is giving the
conclusion of his talk. He is summing it up. That, according to the
Watchtower is the syntelia or last days. Then, when the speaker walks
off of the platform that is the telos or final end. However, this is
absolute nonsense. Again, had they taken the time to look into a number
of passages where the word is used, and any of a number of Lexicons,
they would have seen that syntelia-and the verb from which it is
taken, synteleo-like telos, generally means the final end or
consummation.
Frankly, this article is so bad that it is difficult for me to believe
that the person or persons who wrote it did not know better. I have
therefore come to feel that they are not only stupid but rank
charlatans. They remind me of a great number of politicians, and in a
religious sense that's what they are. It is therefore not surprising
that they are trying to keep this bunkum from the general public. But
they will not succeed. There are too many still outwardly associated
with the organization who are willing to divulge what they are up to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 04:34:39 PM |
|
|
Watchtower 1965 August 15 p.497
"If, because of the blameless conduct of one since his reinstatement, the
congregation has come to view him as a good example, then if such a person,
who
was at one time disfellowshiped but has now returned and shown humility,
proved
his love for Jehovah's Word and work for ten years after reinstatement, it
would
be in harmony with the parable of the prodigal son if such one were used as
a
congregation book study conductor and allowed to give public talks. Later,
he
may even be privileged to serve in a greater capacity in Jehovah's
organization."
Yes, a JW may commit a serious sin but he has to "work" for the WTBTS for at
least ten years to get back in good standing. Please note that repentance
to
God is not even mentioned. He has to "prove" his "humility" to the WTBTS
(in
other words - be in complete subjection to the authority of WTBTS) and
"prove"
that he believes in the Watchtower - not the Bible.
"John Clancy McDonald" JABRIOL<""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote
in message news:fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net...
SNIIIIIP!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 07:35:51 PM |
|
|
Why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? “The reason why
Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes Dr. Popper, is
that “its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was
convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for
it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been
reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the
alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”
The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their
dislike of the alternative—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific
to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What
may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator
means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new
facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride?
Atheist Aldous Huxley’s admission reveals another possibility, when he
says: “We objected to the morality [of the Bible] because it interfered
with our sexual freedom.”
Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Is it a testable scientific theory? No.
Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.
Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many
believe it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 08:59:36 AM |
|
|
"Mike Johannson" <tranvestiteCarol@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote in message
news:fn3h9q$rf0$1@news.albasani.net...
Why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? "The reason why
Darwinism has been almost universally accepted," writes Dr. Popper, is
that "its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was
convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it
created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached." As
evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: "For a biologist the alternative to
thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all."
The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their
dislike of the alternative-theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific
to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What
may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator
means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts
about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride? Atheist Aldous
Huxley's admission reveals another possibility, when he says: "We objected
to the morality [of the Bible] because it interfered with our sexual
freedom."
Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Liar.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Fossils |
21 Jan 2008 07:39:01 PM |
|
|
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms. They point to
similarities in skeletal structure of different animals as proof that
such animals are related, if not by direct descent, at least by descent
from a common ancestor. They point out that in the early stages of
development from the egg cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble
those of “lower” ones. They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical
structure of hemoglobin and on that basis classify different species as
being close or more distant relatives.
They claim that such comparisons lead inevitably to the conclusion that
all animals have a common ancestry. They say they cannot conceive of any
other explanation. Of course, having first ruled out the possibility
that all have the same Designer and Maker, they cannot accept that as an
alternative explanation. But in the textbook Man and the Biological
World the authors admit that such proof is not complete: “The existence
of homologous resemblances, of parallelisms in embryonic development,
and of graded degrees of chemical relationship between organisms does
not in itself prove that evolution has occurred.”
For proof that evolution really did take place, they fall back on
paleontology. As stated in Outlines of Historical Geology: “Although the
comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing
circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical,
documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more
complex forms.”
Thus we are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof
that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a
succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which
the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of
it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive
fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one
end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have
a fish!
But a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of
sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs,
with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs.
Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old
seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their
forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with
claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny
beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have
given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms
exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and
each type of their progeny.
Is that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an
evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme
imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would
supply the transitional forms between species—missing links, they came
to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of
evolution by natural selection.
But these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually
show? Each new kind of plant or animal—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile,
insect, bird, or mammal—appears suddenly in the geologic column.
Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the
Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish,
in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems
appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in
lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of
insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed
and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata.
Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden
appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.
This is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance
of new kinds of plants and animals—no precursors. Does this not suggest,
to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in
successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fossils |
21 Jan 2008 08:24:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:39:01 -0500, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCarol@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
Shut the ***** up Poo-Jabbers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Fossils |
22 Jan 2008 01:31:23 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:vtkap3h2l82l2qdtchf8go25s31tfpde4r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:39:01 -0500, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCarol@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
Shut the ***** up Poo-Jabbers.
I see you got the *****'s number. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Fossils |
21 Jan 2008 07:43:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:39:01 -0500, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCarol@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Anybody who starts with this stupid ***** is either lying or
stupid.
[pig-ignorant stupidity deleted]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Fossils |
22 Jan 2008 01:29:31 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:qeiap3hqaeekr08dj7n2n5kgsmsspcn3ac@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:39:01 -0500, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCarol@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Anybody who starts with this stupid ***** is either lying or
stupid.
[pig-ignorant stupidity deleted]
It's that ***** jabriol impersonating the posters in ARJ-W again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Fossils |
22 Jan 2008 08:57:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:29:31 -0600, "Ips-Switch" <Ips794@spamnot.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:qeiap3hqaeekr08dj7n2n5kgsmsspcn3ac@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:39:01 -0500, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCarol@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Anybody who starts with this stupid ***** is either lying or
stupid.
[pig-ignorant stupidity deleted]
It's that ***** jabriol impersonating the posters in ARJ-W again.
Oh, *****. Another of his nyms for the kill file.
Why don't his own fellow JWs try to keep him under control? As I
understand it they keep files on their members as part that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Fossils |
22 Jan 2008 03:29:06 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:8u0cp3tel7vbk642jh284kfsqdr9ie1mv3@4ax.com...
Why don't his own fellow JWs try to keep him under control? As I
understand it they keep files on their members as part that.
They can't because he lies to the elders in his Camden NJ congregation. He
has been reported to them more than once. He told them people impersonate
him, that he doesn't use Usenet. He LIES like most theists we find here. If
you noticed, since the last time he was warned by his elders, he changes his
nym constantly and impersonates other people. It also gets him past your
killfiles. He's a lying deceitful scumbag who believes he's got a sure
ticked to Paradise simply because he's a Jehovahs Witless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Fossils |
22 Jan 2008 10:52:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:39:01 -0500, Mike Johannson wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms. They point to
similarities in skeletal structure of different animals as proof that
such animals are related, if not by direct descent, at least by descent
from a common ancestor. They point out that in the early stages of
development from the egg cell, the embryos of higher animals resemble
those of lower ones. They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical
structure of hemoglobin and on that basis classify different species as
being close or more distant relatives.
They claim that such comparisons lead inevitably to the conclusion that
all animals have a common ancestry. They say they cannot conceive of any
other explanation. Of course, having first ruled out the possibility
that all have the same Designer and Maker, they cannot accept that as an
alternative explanation. But in the textbook Man and the Biological
World the authors admit that such proof is not complete: The existence
of homologous resemblances, of parallelisms in embryonic development,
and of graded degrees of chemical relationship between organisms does
not in itself prove that evolution has occurred.
For proof that evolution really did take place, they fall back on
paleontology. As stated in Outlines of Historical Geology: Although the
comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing
circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical,
documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more
complex forms.
Thus we are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof
that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a
succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which
the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of
it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive
fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one
end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have
a fish!
But a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of
sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs,
with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs.
Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old
seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their
forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with
claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny
beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have
given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms
exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and
each type of their progeny.
Is that what we really find? Of course not!
Actually, it is.
The oldest fossils are the chemical "fingerprint" of a mat of blue-green
algae that covered the entire planet for billions of years. Once
vertebrates appear in the fossil record, there is a continuous progression
from fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals & birds, with multiple
"transitional" forms in between, spanning a time interval of 650 million
years.
If you remain unconvinced, point to one thing on a human that you can't
get from a chimp with only minor tweaking.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 07:15:29 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:35:51 -0500, Mike Johannson wrote:
The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their
dislike of the alternativetheism, a belief in God. But is it scientific
to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What
may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator
means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new
facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride?
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
me when i see it. If there were credible, scientific evidence of a god,
that would be HUGE for the scientific community, as it would be for
everyone else. If nothing else, every scientific paper published would
have to address the possibility that a god was tampering with the results.
That doesn't even begin to address the issue that scientists, as people,
would have to be crazy to ignore a god who had certain expectations of us.
Atheist Aldous Huxleys admission reveals another possibility, when he
says: We objected to the morality [of the Bible] because it
interfered with our sexual freedom.
If a god exists, that would in no way support the theory that the bible is
an authentic account of his activities and expectations of us. In fact,
if there were evidence of a god, and his last word to us was the mythology
of Bronze Age goat herders, I would conclude that he doesn't have anything
he wants us to know.
Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Is it a testable scientific theory? No.
Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.
Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many
believe it?
Few things are as puzzling, or offensive, as willful ignorance.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "M.M. Martinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 03:34:24 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.22.13.15.26.803557@nowhere.com...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:35:51 -0500, Mike Johannson wrote:
The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their
dislike of the alternativetheism, a belief in God. But is it scientific
to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What
may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator
means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new
facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride?
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
me when i see it.
Keep in mind Mark that's you're replying to JABRIOL impersonating other
posters from ARJW. He cuts and pastes the idiotic ***** from the
Watchtower's CDs and cross-posts it everywhere. This is how he tricks you
all into reading his cult's literature and gets him attention and replies.
Do you see any rational replies on his part?
<brevity snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 04:15:27 PM |
|
|
M.M. Martinson wrote:
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
me when i see it.
Keep in mind Mark that's you're replying to JABRIOL impersonating other
posters from ARJW.
Keep in mind Mark Jabriol is everyone and everyone is Jabriol. If I were
You I would kill file every one including yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 05:29:28 PM |
|
|
"Ips-Switch" <myhubbylikes@littleboys.net> wrote in message
news:fn5pu2$ceg$2@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
me when i see it.
Keep in mind Mark that's you're replying to JABRIOL impersonating other
posters from ARJW.
Keep in mind Mark Jabriol is everyone and everyone is Jabriol. If I were
You I would kill file every one including yourself.
But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 12:53:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:29:28 -0600, jabriol wrote:
"Ips-Switch" <myhubbylikes@littleboys.net> wrote in message
news:fn5pu2$ceg$2@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
me when i see it.
Keep in mind Mark that's you're replying to JABRIOL impersonating other
posters from ARJW.
Keep in mind Mark Jabriol is everyone and everyone is Jabriol. If I were
You I would kill file every one including yourself.
But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night.
At least the carp in the ponds aren't trying to promote ignorance in a
society that already has it in abundance.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 04:44:16 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.24.18.53.07.337359@nowhere.com...
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:29:28 -0600, jabriol wrote:
"Ips-Switch" <myhubbylikes@littleboys.net> wrote in message
news:fn5pu2$ceg$2@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always
amazes
me when i see it.
Keep in mind Mark that's you're replying to JABRIOL impersonating
other
posters from ARJW.
Keep in mind Mark Jabriol is everyone and everyone is Jabriol. If I were
You I would kill file every one including yourself.
But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night.
At least the carp in the ponds aren't trying to promote ignorance in a
society that already has it in abundance.
Not to mention we all sleep well at night totally unconcerned about low life
ghetto welfare living black
Puerto Rican scum of the earth. :-)
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
25 Jan 2008 12:34:25 AM |
|
|
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:479914c3$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.24.18.53.07.337359@nowhere.com...
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:29:28 -0600, jabriol wrote:
"Ips-Switch" <myhubbylikes@littleboys.net> wrote in message
news:fn5pu2$ceg$2@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always
amazes
me when i see it.
Keep in mind Mark that's you're replying to JABRIOL impersonating
other
posters from ARJW.
Keep in mind Mark Jabriol is everyone and everyone is Jabriol. If I
were
You I would kill file every one including yourself.
But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night.
At least the carp in the ponds aren't trying to promote ignorance in a
society that already has it in abundance.
Not to mention we all sleep well at night totally unconcerned about low
life ghetto welfare living black
Puerto Rican scum of the earth. :-)
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
Soup kitchens support the lazy.
And why pay 25 bucks to put abandoned animals to sleep? Drop them onto
any interstate, and let the scavanger and hill billies do the rest.
Better, feed dogchops and buffalo cat paw to the lazy ones, freeloading
the soup kitchens.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 05:28:37 PM |
|
|
"Ips-Switch" <myhubbylikes@littleboys.net> wrote in message
news:fn5pu2$ceg$2@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
me when i see it.
Keep in mind Mark that's you're replying to JABRIOL impersonating other
posters from ARJW.
Keep in mind Mark Jabriol is everyone and everyone is Jabriol. If I were
You I would kill file every one including yourself.
Hay Jabbers, your wife still giving $2 blow jobs beind the Kingdom Hall?
Where does the line start?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 10:46:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:28:37 -0600, "Ips-Switch" <Ips794@spamnot.com>
wrote:
"Ips-Switch" <myhubbylikes@littleboys.net> wrote in message
news:fn5pu2$ceg$2@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
me when i see it.
Keep in mind Mark that's you're replying to JABRIOL impersonating other
posters from ARJW.
Keep in mind Mark Jabriol is everyone and everyone is Jabriol. If I were
You I would kill file every one including yourself.
Hay Jabbers, your wife still giving $2 blow jobs beind the Kingdom Hall?
Where does the line start?
The price has dropped to 20 cents.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 07:43:00 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2008.01.22.13.15.26.803557@nowhere.com>,
MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:35:51 -0500, Mike Johannson wrote:
The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their
dislike of the alternativetheism, a belief in God. But is it scientific
to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What
may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator
means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new
facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride?
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
dont know about scientists in general or atheists in general
but for dogmatic atheists (like dawkins) its pretty accurate
its a clash between religions
each hellbent on getting their belief system enshrined as the state religion
so that all those tax dollars flow into their priesthood
me when i see it. If there were credible, scientific evidence of a god,
that would be HUGE for the scientific community, as it would be for
saying something like pretty much shows you dont understand
what -scientific evidence- means
the scientific method assumes no active deities in the universe
therefore it is logically unable to develop evidence of an active god
the closest it could come is provable incompletion
an event which cannot be denied
and is impossible to explain with the scientific method
Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many
believe it?
Few things are as puzzling, or offensive, as willful ignorance.
some assumptions of darwin are testable
a few are not
dogma supplies the answer to untestable assumptions
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: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 07:57:13 AM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal said the following on 1/22/2008 5:43 AM:
In article <pan.2008.01.22.13.15.26.803557@nowhere.com>,
MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:35:51 -0500, Mike Johannson wrote:
The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their
dislike of the alternativetheism, a belief in God. But is it scientific
to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What
may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator
means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new
facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride?
This argument is so stupid, even for creationists, that it always amazes
dont know about scientists in general or atheists in general
Then you don't know about the subject.
but for dogmatic atheists (like dawkins) its pretty accurate
Dawkins is an antitheistic atheist. It doesn't necessarily mean that he
"dislikes the alternative".
its a clash between religions
Not at all. Hardcore scientists can also be religious. As long as
their belief does not interfere with their job, they can believe in a
flying spaghetti monster. It doesn't matter what they believe or don't
believe.
each hellbent on getting their belief system enshrined as the state religion
so that all those tax dollars flow into their priesthood
To define science as "religion" adulterates both religion and science.
me when i see it. If there were credible, scientific evidence of a god,
that would be HUGE for the scientific community, as it would be for
saying something like pretty much shows you dont understand
what -scientific evidence- means
the scientific method assumes no active deities in the universe
The scientific method assumes nothing. At all. Not even "no active
deities".
therefore it is logically unable to develop evidence of an active god
Only if you're in error as to your axioms.
the closest it could come is provable incompletion
an event which cannot be denied
and is impossible to explain with the scientific method
So, gods are not scientific.
Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many
believe it?
Few things are as puzzling, or offensive, as willful ignorance.
some assumptions of darwin are testable
a few are not
Like what? Please elaborate.
dogma supplies the answer to untestable assumptions
You said it!
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 09:42:23 AM |
|
|
The scientific method assumes nothing. At all. Not even "no active
deities".
geez youre an idiot
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
