Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all

Religions > Atheism > Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"MarkA"
Date:	15 Aug 2005 06:31:17 AM
Object:	Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all

It really baffles me why the whole notion of "Intelligent Design" as a
science is getting so much traction. The premise is that the Universe is
too complex to have come about "by chance", therefore, it must have been
designed. If the Designer were at least as complex as the Universe He
designed, wouldn't He need a Designer, too? If He is less complex than
the Universe, you are talking about evolution, so there is not dispute in
concept, just vocabulary. If you want to say that He is more complex, but
doesn't need a Designer of His own "just because", then you are talking
about magic, and by definition are outside the boundaries of science.
Is there another line of reasoning that I'm not seeing?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.

User: "Larry Heath"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 05:05:55 PM

"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.15.11.31.15.190977@stopspam.net...

It really baffles me why the whole notion of "Intelligent Design" as a
science is getting so much traction. The premise is that the Universe is
too complex to have come about "by chance", therefore, it must have been
designed. If the Designer were at least as complex as the Universe He
designed, wouldn't He need a Designer, too? If He is less complex than
the Universe, you are talking about evolution, so there is not dispute in
concept, just vocabulary. If you want to say that He is more complex, but
doesn't need a Designer of His own "just because", then you are talking
about magic, and by definition are outside the boundaries of science.

Is there another line of reasoning that I'm not seeing?

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

Its really simple, its the same old ***** as always with theists, we can't
understand it, so god did it.
Only this time they got some really good publicists, lots of money, and a
catchy name, that is not overtly religious. We also have so many politicians
that are religiously retarded, so it becomes as easy to fly this crap as if
it was a kite in a high wind. Crap look at the loon we have in the White
House, is it any wonder crap like this gets so much traction.
Later Larry
aa # 2216
.

User: "pat obeur"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 11:42:17 AM

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:05:55 -0400, Larry Heath wrote:

"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.15.11.31.15.190977@stopspam.net...

It really baffles me why the whole notion of "Intelligent Design" as a
science is getting so much traction. The premise is that the Universe
is too complex to have come about "by chance", therefore, it must have
been designed. If the Designer were at least as complex as the Universe
He designed, wouldn't He need a Designer, too? If He is less complex
than the Universe, you are talking about evolution, so there is not
dispute in concept, just vocabulary. If you want to say that He is more
complex, but doesn't need a Designer of His own "just because", then you
are talking about magic, and by definition are outside the boundaries of
science.

Is there another line of reasoning that I'm not seeing?

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

Its really simple, its the same old ***** as always with theists, we can't
understand it, so god did it.

Only this time they got some really good publicists, lots of money, and a
catchy name, that is not overtly religious. We also have so many
politicians that are religiously retarded, so it becomes as easy to fly
this crap as if it was a kite in a high wind. Crap look at the loon we
have in the White House, is it any wonder crap like this gets so much
traction.

Later Larry
aa # 2216

Always be suspicious when politicians talk religion.
Remember what said king Henri IV who was protestant and therefore couldn't
access to the French crown:
"Paris, is worth a mass".
so he switched to Catholicism and became king.
--
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable, and to give an appearance
of solidity to pure wind."
-George Orwell-
.

User: "MarkA"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 12:49:34 PM

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:42:17 +0200, pat o'beur wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:05:55 -0400, Larry Heath wrote:

"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.15.11.31.15.190977@stopspam.net...

It really baffles me why the whole notion of "Intelligent Design" as a
science is getting so much traction. The premise is that the Universe
is too complex to have come about "by chance", therefore, it must have
been designed. If the Designer were at least as complex as the
Universe He designed, wouldn't He need a Designer, too? If He is less
complex than the Universe, you are talking about evolution, so there is
not dispute in concept, just vocabulary. If you want to say that He is
more complex, but doesn't need a Designer of His own "just because",
then you are talking about magic, and by definition are outside the
boundaries of science.

Is there another line of reasoning that I'm not seeing?

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

Its really simple, its the same old ***** as always with theists, we
can't understand it, so god did it.

Only this time they got some really good publicists, lots of money, and
a catchy name, that is not overtly religious. We also have so many
politicians that are religiously retarded, so it becomes as easy to fly
this crap as if it was a kite in a high wind. Crap look at the loon we
have in the White House, is it any wonder crap like this gets so much
traction.

Later Larry
aa # 2216

As the movie, "the Wicker Man" portrayed, for a religion to work, it must
be *useful* to its practitioners.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.

User: "pat obeur"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	17 Aug 2005 08:08:11 AM

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:49:34 +0000, MarkA wrote:

As the movie, "the Wicker Man" portrayed, for a religion to work, it must
be *useful* to its practitioners.

How much? ;)
--
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable, and to give an appearance
of solidity to pure wind."
-George Orwell-
.

User: "WCB"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 01:22:42 PM

MarkA wrote:

It really baffles me why the whole notion of "Intelligent Design" as a
science is getting so much traction. The premise is that the Universe is
too complex to have come about "by chance", therefore, it must have been
designed. If the Designer were at least as complex as the Universe He
designed, wouldn't He need a Designer, too? If He is less complex than
the Universe, you are talking about evolution, so there is not dispute in
concept, just vocabulary. If you want to say that He is more complex, but
doesn't need a Designer of His own "just because", then you are talking
about magic, and by definition are outside the boundaries of science.

Is there another line of reasoning that I'm not seeing?

No, you have it right.
The ID boosters do ignore all problems with their claims.
Its typical creationism, attack, never defend, ignore all
counter attacks. Its a mindset.
I have shown that god as a creator of anything is
a disproven idea.
Consider the question, does god make teh rules, the laws,
the very logic of the Universe. Is 2 + 2 = to 4 because
created these rules. Or is that rule something outside of god?
If yes, if god creates all the rules, the laws, the very logic
of the Universe he could then easily create a Universe where
man has free will and a good nature incapable of moral evil.
Moral evil could not exist.
But we live in a universe where moral evil is all to common
among mankind. So if god does make the rules, the laws,
the very logic of the universe, he is then creator and sustaining
cause of all moral evil that was is and will be.
And thus is evil. God is defined a priori as being omnibenevolent.
Obviously then, we are forced to answer no, god does not
create the laws, rules and logic of the Universe.
And obviously, they limit god, God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, or
other similar thinks like creator a man with free will who freely
chooses only to do moral good.
That means then, that the Universe with its rules and laws and
logic is outside and beyond god and his control.
And that thus it must hav preceeded god or paralleled god
he cannot have created that Universe nor its logic and laws.
So he is now proven to not be the creator of that Universe with
its laws and rules and logic.
So ID is now down for the count, and its a KO for strong atheism
and simple logic.
ID is not only not a good idea, it is almost trivially debunked.
Since god cannot have created teh Universe with its laws and rules and
logic, and most certainly did not create those rules, those laws, the logic
of the Universe, one has to ask where did they come from
and how is it that these rules and laws and logic as so exquisitely
manage to accomodate a Universe so fit for life?
We don't need god to explain this, not only do we not need god, but the
claims made for this god prove this god cannot in any way be responsible
for the laws, the rules, the very logic of the Universe as a whole.
God cannot explain any of this even in principle.
How it is that this Universe allows for life and has the characteristics is
now in the hands of cosmologists and physicists. Theology has nothing to
say about this as god is now ruled out as having anything to do with either
creating the Universe or is rules.
Since we can prove god is superflous, its now up to the ID
goofs to show god is in any way relevant to these questions,
rather than assuming god does and attacking science, based
on a failed and debunkable assumption.
The burden of proof now swings to the creationists and
its up to them to start by showing god does exist. Which
they cannot do.
ID is dead, lets kick its ugly corpse.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 08:05:32 AM

MarkA wrote:

It really baffles me why the whole notion of "Intelligent Design" as a
science is getting so much traction. The premise is that the Universe is
too complex to have come about "by chance", therefore, it must have been
designed. If the Designer were at least as complex as the Universe He
designed, wouldn't He need a Designer, too? If He is less complex than
the Universe, you are talking about evolution, so there is not dispute in
concept, just vocabulary. If you want to say that He is more complex, but
doesn't need a Designer of His own "just because", then you are talking
about magic, and by definition are outside the boundaries of science.

Is there another line of reasoning that I'm not seeing?

Yes the line of reason you are not seeing is that if god created the
universe, then he must have existed before the universe was created.
Therefore he must have existed in a place where there exists no time,
no matter , no space (since he must have also created time, matter, and
space).
God is outside of time, space and matter. He must be since if created
the universe. So therefore in a place like that, we dont know what is
means to exist, there is no creation needed because there is no matter
to create with since God is not made of matter.
Since there was no "time", then there was no "before" God (you need
time in order to have a "before"). Therefore nobody created god, he is
the beginning of all (check your quantum theory from back in school
dayz).
People keep saying religion and science dont mix. This is hardly true
because of you believe God created the universe, then he must have also
created all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics,
quantum physics, time, particles, DNA etc. Therefore religion and
belief in God as everything to do with science.
It's amazing that people believe evolution. It's the only scientific
theory that requires legal support, without it Evolution would
collapse.
Shaggy
"Science without religion is lame, religion without sicence is blind" -
Albert Einstine
.

User: "LC"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 09:05:21 AM

<tangerine_male@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124111132.131293.89710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<insane circular logic mercifully snipped>

People keep saying religion and science dont mix. This is hardly true
because of you believe God created the universe, then he must have also
created all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics,
quantum physics, time, particles, DNA etc. Therefore religion and
belief in God as everything to do with science.

Say what...?!

It's amazing that people believe evolution. It's the only scientific
theory that requires legal support, without it Evolution would
collapse.

Shaggy
"Science without religion is lame, religion without sicence is blind" -
Albert Einstine

"Einstine"?
LC~ This poster's logic train is not only "Shaggy", but exceptionally
"Shoddy" as well.
"Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality."~ Barry Lynn
.

User: "IBen Getiner"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 01:25:51 PM

LC wrote:

<tangerine_male@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124111132.131293.89710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<insane circular logic mercifully snipped>
Loose Cannon May 12, 12:46 pm hide options
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
From: "Loose Cannon" <looseai...@this.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:46:28 GMT
Local: Thurs, May 12 2005 12:46 pm
Subject: "IBen's" return as "fattuchus". Was 'Oh Darling'
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original |
Report Abuse
Not that this moron hasn't already been identified by many here as a
troll,
but he's a particularly vile troll at that, as anyone who remembers
"IBen"
can attest. Please consider this just a head's up, before this halfwit
really gets cranked up:
<

> AKA "IBenGetiner" <

>
wrote in message
news:1115886620.041309.23010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Dear Loose Cannon,
I see your nick name really fits you.

So, IBen, I guess that would mean you have a "fat tuchus"?

NO, I am not a troll

Uh huh. Not you:
"Anyone here think that Sean is a closet homosexual?"
From:

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Sean Lennon picks a fight...
Date: 29 Apr 2005 12:34:35 -0700
Message-ID: <1114803274.990986.216920@l41g=AD2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Got a real fixation on the Lennon's sexuality, eh? (See below)

and have never gone by any other name. If you think I ever went by another
moniker here, well then research it and prove it, because you will be
wasting your time.

Well lessee, IBenFat:
You and IBen share a Beatles fixation. No problem there.
You and IBen share a fixation with Michael Jackson. Hmmm...
You and IBen share a fixation with homosexuals. Hmmm...
You and IBen do much of your posting in the wee hours. Hmmm...
You and IBen-and, your other sockpuppet, "Jon Young" share an ISP.
Hmmm...
You, IBen, and "Jon Young" frequently post from the same NNTP's: Double
Hmmm...
From: "IBen Getiner" <Lappc...@AOL.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Why no George?
Date: 23 Apr 2005 01:29:35 -0700
Message-ID: <1114244975.744495.12600@o13g2=AD000cwo.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.116.14
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
From:

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: mr. charlie
Date: 11 May 2005 05:06:27 -0700
Message-ID: <1115813187.430837.71400@g47g2=AD000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.116.14
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Hey, let's not leave out your "JYoung" sockpuppet:
From:

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Oh Darling
Date: 12 May 2005 01:30:20 -0700
Message-ID: <1115886620.041309.23...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
From: "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com>
Newsgroups:
tx.politics,soc.veterans,seatt=ADle.politics,soc.culture.jewish=AD,alt.poli=
tics.usa
Subject: Re: Japanese called pigs
Date: 19 Apr 2005 22:03:32 -0700
Message-ID: <1113973412.186482.128...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
From: "IBen Getiner" <Lappc...@AOL.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: OT: Clapton Weeps!
Date: 6 May 2005 20:41:20 -0700
Message-ID: <1115437280.550621.306...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
From:

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: mr. charlie
Date: 12 May 2005 04:02:06 -0700
Message-ID: <1115895726.359788.159...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
From: "IBen Getiner" <Lappc...@AOL.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: One of the first heavy metal songs
Date: 29 Apr 2005 02:36:12 -0700
Message-ID: <1114767372.699445.248...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
From: "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com>
Newsgroups:
seattle.politics,tx.politics,s=ADoc.culture.jewish,talk.abortio=ADn,ca.poli=
tics
Subject: Saying "No" to affirmative action
Date: 11 Jan 2005 22:11:32 -0800
Message-ID: <1105510292.017272.67...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Oh my. You 'boys' seem to get around, hmmm?
Any more questions, Fat? <BFG>

Why would I go by a stupid name like Iben when my moniker, fattuchus, is so
darn clever?

The same delusions of grandeur, I see.
At least as 'fat tuchus', your trolling style is more of the benignly
stupid
schtick of "JYoung" than the vile hatred of your "IBen" and "TNMM"
personas.
There are meds for schizophrenia, y'know?

Why would I want to be an Iben when I could be a fattuchus?

Why, indeed. Why not dress up and play a bunch of characters?:
lappc...@aol.com, Lappc...@webtv.net, iappc...@aol.com,
youngopini...@aol.com, jdyoun...@yahoo.com,

hokkaspok...@webtv.net
dommano...@webtv.net,

hokkazpok...@webtv.net,

Blotterpap...@webtv.net,

Hitherand...@AOL.com,

I don't even know who Iben is.

Uh huh.
And you don't even know who 'Mr. Charlie' is, do you?

For all I know, maybe your're Iben.

Hey, for all the forgeries you've done of me and others, maybe you're
'Loose
Cannon'?:
From:

Newsgroups: alt.flame.niggers
Subject: Re: LEROY KNEVIL HELPED SLAVE RASTUS McBOYLE ESCAPE FROM
AFN!!!!!
Date: 18 Jan 2005 05:54:13 -0800
Message-ID: <1106056453.583827.238...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Playing in the <alt.flame.> groups? That's so "IBen".
Sorry "IBenFatJon", you've been outed before you could stir up trouble
in
your inimitable fashion.
LC~ Just a lurker's heads up on a 'fat tuchus' of a troll.
"Can anyone put to rest once and for all the rumors that John Lennon
was gay?"~ "JYoung", right before being outed as "IBen".
From:

(Jon Young)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Was Lennon gay?
Date: 28 Mar 2004 19:45:21 -0800
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.0403281945.65e24...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.252.163
"Let this one rest in peace. Don't ask, don't tell. That's my advice."
~
"IBen", responding to his sockpuppet.
From:

(IBen Getiner)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Was Lennon gay?
Date: 30 Mar 2004 02:14:45 -0800
Message-ID: <396a5984.0403300214.19d1...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.252.163
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/b43e9e352a10a094?hl=
=3Den&
.

User: "LC"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 01:40:51 PM

Cowardly lyin' sockpuppeting bigot "IBen Getiner" <Lappcatt@AOL.com>
AKA "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>"IBen Getiner" <Lappcatt@AOL.com> wrote
in message news:1124216751.910524.174580@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<IBenTrollingAsJYoungAndStalking's tripe dumped>
Well, if it isn't the hit and run troll "IBen Jon Young". I thought you were
in NYC for a few weeks? <BFG>
Just another in a long string of lies, then?
Hey, and what about this, "Jon"?: http://tinyurl.com/bjupd
LC~ Run, "Jon", run!
"Fear is the tax that conscience pays to guilt."~ George Sewell
.

User: "IBen Getiner"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 11:36:47 PM

May 17, 3:03 pm hide options
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
From:

- Find messages by this author
Date: 17 May 2005 12:03:33 -0700
Local: Tues, May 17 2005 3:03 pm
Subject: Re: The Greatest Beatles' Concert
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original |
Report Abuse
Out of 20,000 possible subjects on google, Iben and I share 4 or 5
subjects in common. Wow.
You know, Loose Brains, I bet if I were to do a search of your
interests and Iben's interests, I'd learn that you and Iben post on the
same newsgroups A LOT more than me and Iben.
Does that mean you are IBEN? Of course not.
Look at our language, our writing styles.
Do I use many curse words? Do I frequently call people names? If you
read my posts, I often ask people to cool it and not be nasty to each
other. I only loose my cool if someone really, repeatedly gets on my
case, and even though I try to be nice. Angry words accomplish almost
nothing.
What's the use . . . . You have your mind made up.
And you know what, let's say Iben and I are one and the same (which we
are NOT), what purpose does it serve you to chase me across the
cyberspace universe as if you are searching for the Holy Grail?
Not only that, if you are incorrect (which you are), do you realize you
are targeting an innocent person? Someone who might have been an ally?
By accusing all these different people as being "sock puppets" and
then calling them names, you are spreading a lot of ill will and
possibly creating an army of enemies. You are ultimately damaging your
own credibility and reputation.
Would you like it if I treated you the same way?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/b0f772e9b8b31bd1?hl=en&
.

User: "IBen Getiner"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 11:53:09 PM

LC wrote:

Cowardly lyin'....

<snip>
Can't prove a thing...

May 17, 3:03 pm hide options
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
From:

- Find messages by this author
Date: 17 May 2005 12:03:33 -0700
Local: Tues, May 17 2005 3:03 pm
Subject: Re: The Greatest Beatles' Concert
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original |
Report Abuse
Out of 20,000 possible subjects on google, Iben and I share 4 or 5
subjects in common. Wow.
You know, Loose Brains, I bet if I were to do a search of your
interests and Iben's interests, I'd learn that you and Iben post on the
same newsgroups A LOT more than me and Iben.
Does that mean you are IBEN? Of course not.
Look at our language, our writing styles.
Do I use many curse words? Do I frequently call people names? If
you
read my posts, I often ask people to cool it and not be nasty to each
other. I only loose my cool if someone really, repeatedly gets on my
case, and even though I try to be nice. Angry words accomplish almost
nothing.
What's the use . . . . You have your mind made up.
And you know what, let's say Iben and I are one and the same (which we
are NOT), what purpose does it serve you to chase me across the
cyberspace universe as if you are searching for the Holy Grail?
Not only that, if you are incorrect (which you are), do you realize you
are targeting an innocent person? Someone who might have been an
ally?
By accusing all these different people as being "sock puppets" and
then calling them names, you are spreading a lot of ill will and
possibly creating an army of enemies. You are ultimately damaging
your
own credibility and reputation.
Would you like it if I treated you the same way?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/b0f772e9b8b31b...
.

User: "Ordog"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 09:04:23 AM

wrote:
<snip>

This is hardly logical even with religious reasoning unless one is
dealing with creationism. Evolution is not the summary of all human
sciences but it is a part of biology. Why are theists rebelling against
Evolution? Why not accept it?
It does not contradict a possible existence of god. It makes no
predictions about how was the Universe created. If you say (as you do
above) that god created the laws of nature (which of course determines
how Evolution progresses) then there is no need for further action on
the side of the deity. He could sit back and watch the Evolution Show,
couldn't he?
But naturally you are insisting on nonsense. Well, be it!

It's amazing that people believe evolution. It's the only scientific
theory that requires legal support, without it Evolution would
collapse.

Nutcase conclusion! Evolution is based on science and not voodoo! Take
away legal support for the sciences and you are teleported back to the
stone age!
Would you care to elaborate on design flows found in many of the
species? Your magic creator must be quite incompetent. I would not
employ him with such a lengthy record of miscreations in any kind of
demanding work!
Ordog
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
.

User: "Shaggy"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 11:45:16 AM

Because it's fiction from a scientific point of view. Scientists are
ignoring their own work.

It does not contradict a possible existence of god.

It does contradict the bible. Evolution is based on the horrible death
of previous mutated generations, this is not how a god of love would
create things. Not to mention the science of it is garbage.

It makes no
predictions about how was the Universe created. If you say (as you do
above) that god created the laws of nature (which of course determines
how Evolution progresses) then there is no need for further action on
the side of the deity. He could sit back and watch the Evolution Show,
couldn't he?

How does the laws of nature make evolution work? THe laws of nature
only supports what is already made, it does not make anything. In fact
the laws naturally tear things down, not build them up. If I leave my
car outside for a while it doesnt start running better, it runs worse,
starts rusting and rotting, the engine ceases up, the oil dries out,
the gas evaporates, the breaks lock up, the paint fades (shall I go
on). It never gets better, it only gets worse unless an intelligent
entity up keeps it because they have a purpose for it, otherwise it
rots way and returns back to chaos. Why then would you beliieve
evolution which contradicts decay that we see every day?

But naturally you are insisting on nonsense. Well, be it!

Nonsense?

It's amazing that people believe evolution. It's the only scientific
theory that requires legal support, without it Evolution would
collapse.

Nutcase conclusion! Evolution is based on science and not voodoo! Take
away legal support for the sciences and you are teleported back to the
stone age!

Evolution is not science, I keep hearing that there are mountains of
evidence for evolution, I have yet to see it. I keep hearing bacteria
getting resistant to antibiotics shows evololution, but it doesnt. Just
because the bateria already has resistance and out lives the others
that dont, how does that show evolution? Thats like saying if I have a
bag full of different colored balls and I pick all of them out of the
bag but the red ones, that measn the red ones has evolved a resistance
to me picking them out of the bag. How silly!

Would you care to elaborate on design flows found in many of the
species? Your magic creator must be quite incompetent. I would not
employ him with such a lengthy record of miscreations in any kind of
demanding work!

Design flaws, well you can call mutations design flaws, but I call them
mutations. Mutations always make bad things happen, I never heard of
any good mutations. If you have let me know (and dont mention sickle
cell please).
You heard of the fruit fly experiment, where scientists bombarded
millions of fruit flies with radiation to speed up mutation and their
evolution over several generations. What happenned, nothing but mutated
and dead fruit flies. None of them came out better off than the plain
old fruit fly they started out with, none of them developed any new
organs, or better hearing, or vision, or any new abilities that
evolution said they would.
None developed the speed of a bionic man, or could jump tall buildings
in a single bound.
Evolution would have you think that getting bitten by a spider for
generations would make people turn into spider man, but yes it does
happen in the movies and the evoltion text books.
Shaggy
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 09:47:31 PM

"Shaggy" <tangerine_male@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124124316.434218.78320@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Because it's fiction from a scientific point of view. Scientists are
ignoring their own work.

I'm a biologist. Please enlighten me. What part of our work are we ignoring?

It does not contradict a possible existence of god.

It does contradict the bible.

It contradicts one particularly literalist, incredibly stupid interpretation
of the bible, which should tell you all you need to know about how the bible
fares as a science book.

Evolution is based on the horrible death

"horrible death"? What's so horrible about death? Death is part of life.
Besides, don't you imagine your god created it if it created everything?

of previous mutated generations,

What is "mutated" about them?

this is not how a god of love would
create things.

Oh? And what special insight do you have into how a "god of love" creates
things? And what makes you think there is a "god of love", if there is a god
at all?

Not to mention the science of it is garbage.

No, seriously. What drugs make you type such silliness? What are you talking
about?

How does the laws of nature make evolution work?

Very well, apparently.

THe laws of nature
only supports what is already made, it does not make anything. In fact
the laws naturally tear things down, not build them up. If I leave my
car

So you think your car is a living thing? This must be part of why you're
confused.

outside for a while it doesnt start running better, it runs worse,
starts rusting and rotting, the engine ceases up, the oil dries out,
the gas evaporates, the breaks

You could at least learn to spell brakes.

lock up, the paint fades (shall I go
on).

Yes. You are making us laugh at you.

It never gets better, it only gets worse unless an intelligent
entity up keeps it because they have a purpose for it, otherwise it
rots way and returns back to chaos. Why then would you beliieve
evolution which contradicts decay that we see every day?

What about evolution says that cars won't rust? You clearly didn't pay much
attention when this topic was covered in school.

But naturally you are insisting on nonsense. Well, be it!

Nonsense?

It's amazing that people believe evolution. It's the only scientific
theory that requires legal support, without it Evolution would
collapse.

Nutcase conclusion! Evolution is based on science and not voodoo! Take
away legal support for the sciences and you are teleported back to the
stone age!

Evolution is not science, I keep hearing that there are mountains of
evidence for evolution, I have yet to see it.

You could try opening a science book.

I keep hearing bacteria
getting resistant to antibiotics shows evololution, but it doesnt.

Of course it does.

Just
because the bateria already has resistance and out lives the others
that dont, how does that show evolution?

It demonstrates the principle of selection, obviously. Future generations
will also be selected that more efficiently resist the antibiotic as genetic
drift and recombination increase the diversity that selection can weed out
as well.

Thats like saying if I have a
bag full of different colored balls and I pick all of them out of the
bag but the red ones, that measn the red ones has evolved a resistance
to me picking them out of the bag. How silly!

Wow. Natural selection is so completely unlike the stupid thing you wrote up
there that it's just not worth it to do anything other than laugh at you.
Yes, there is silliness but it's all at your simplemindedness.

Design flaws, well you can call mutations design flaws, but I call them
mutations. Mutations always make bad things happen, I never heard of
any good mutations.

You haven't heard of much, though. Mutations can be good, bad, or neutral.

If you have let me know (and dont mention sickle
cell please).

How about every time your immune system evolves an antibody by mutating the
genes for B cell receptors? Happens every day.

You heard of the fruit fly experiment, where scientists bombarded
millions of fruit flies with radiation to speed up mutation and their
evolution over several generations. What happenned, nothing but mutated
and dead fruit flies. None of them came out better off than the plain
old fruit fly they started out with, none of them developed any new
organs, or better hearing, or vision, or any new abilities that
evolution said they would.
None developed the speed of a bionic man, or could jump tall buildings
in a single bound.

Evolution would have you think that getting bitten by a spider for
generations would make people turn into spider man, but yes it does
happen in the movies and the evoltion text books.

Shaggy

OK, now I know you're just kidding. Nobody's this dumb.
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 10:01:27 PM

Mark Stahl wrote:
<snip>

OK, now I know you're just kidding. Nobody's this dumb.

Every thing you said to this point was right on the mark.
This comment is dead wrong.
P.S. If you say "Nobody could be dumber than this." you'll be wrong twice .
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	17 Aug 2005 12:10:47 PM

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bGcMe.2990$Hn3.2211@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...

Mark Stahl wrote:
<snip>

OK, now I know you're just kidding. Nobody's this dumb.

Every thing you said to this point was right on the mark.
This comment is dead wrong.

P.S. If you say "Nobody could be dumber than this." you'll be wrong twice
.

LOL.. I really thought I was having my leg pulled!
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 01:19:49 PM

Does not the curent state of mathmatics allow for a number of
universes. one of which being what we live in.?
If true then GOD may be a member of a society in another universe
which has reached the stage of producing other universes.
Or you go the computer game type route. Our Universe is a video game.
Since we are in the game there is no way of detecting the illusion
since if the game is terminated we do not exist.
We appear to have free will but is that a reality or is every action in
fact preordained ?
And is there a way to prove or disprove the concept ?
.

User: "Jim07D5"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 01:40:44 PM

said:

Do you suppose they have this same issue of Intelligent Design, in
that universe?
Something has to be markedly different, between this universe and that
one, or the next,... if your (interesting) suggestion is not to lead
to an infinite number of nested universes.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.;-)
--- Jim07D5
.

User: "WCB"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 02:04:21 PM

Jim07D5 wrote:

marks542004@yahoo.com said:

Do you suppose they have this same issue of Intelligent Design, in
that universe?

Something has to be markedly different, between this universe and that
one, or the next,... if your (interesting) suggestion is not to lead
to an infinite number of nested universes.

Which is exactly what some physicists believe.
We live in an infinite hyper-Universe, of which this little
Island Universe is but one of an infinite number. An
overwhelming majority of such universe are malformed, they
do not last long, many wink in and out of existant in milliseconds.
a few last longer, but not all will have life. The laws of each Universe
may differ wildly from others. Only the rarest of the rare Universe may
have life like ours. But with infinite Universes coming and going
we have infinite Universes with life similar to ours possible.
if only one Universe of a trillion, trillion, trillion has possibilty of
like, still by natural physics, life will be common among infinite
Universes.
Any possible physical Univese in an infinite sea of Universes may occur.
And will occur.
God is not a logical idea and lends itself to being debunked almost
trivially.
The idea of infinite Universes is pure physics based on
easily observed physical processes.
We don't need god to understand this or cause it.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "MarkA"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 11:04:33 AM

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:04:21 -0500, WCB wrote:

Jim07D5 wrote:

marks542004@yahoo.com said:

Do you suppose they have this same issue of Intelligent Design, in that
universe?

Something has to be markedly different, between this universe and that
one, or the next,... if your (interesting) suggestion is not to lead to
an infinite number of nested universes.

Which is exactly what some physicists believe.

We live in an infinite hyper-Universe, of which this little Island
Universe is but one of an infinite number. An overwhelming majority of
such universe are malformed, they do not last long, many wink in and out
of existant in milliseconds. a few last longer, but not all will have
life. The laws of each Universe may differ wildly from others. Only the
rarest of the rare Universe may have life like ours. But with infinite
Universes coming and going we have infinite Universes with life similar to
ours possible. if only one Universe of a trillion, trillion, trillion has
possibilty of like, still by natural physics, life will be common among
infinite Universes.
Any possible physical Univese in an infinite sea of Universes may occur.
And will occur.

God is not a logical idea and lends itself to being debunked almost
trivially.

The idea of infinite Universes is pure physics based on easily observed
physical processes.

We don't need god to understand this or cause it.

All that we can say with *any* certainty is that our current Universe
appears to be expanding outwards from some former, much
hotter/denser/smaller state. What came "before" the Big Bang? There is
no way of knowing, since any information from that former state would have
been lost in the BB itself.
I sometimes wonder if we are not like bugs under a bowl. We can study
what we can observe, but we can only speculate on what may lie beyond what
we can see. The bug scientists would have no way to know that a vast
universe lies beyond the inside of the bowl.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.

User: "WCB"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 12:37:21 PM

MarkA wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:04:21 -0500, WCB wrote:

Jim07D5 wrote:

marks542004@yahoo.com said:

Do you suppose they have this same issue of Intelligent Design, in that
universe?

Something has to be markedly different, between this universe and that
one, or the next,... if your (interesting) suggestion is not to lead to
an infinite number of nested universes.

Which is exactly what some physicists believe.

We live in an infinite hyper-Universe, of which this little Island
Universe is but one of an infinite number. An overwhelming majority of
such universe are malformed, they do not last long, many wink in and out
of existant in milliseconds. a few last longer, but not all will have
life. The laws of each Universe may differ wildly from others. Only the
rarest of the rare Universe may have life like ours. But with infinite
Universes coming and going we have infinite Universes with life similar
to ours possible. if only one Universe of a trillion, trillion, trillion
has possibilty of like, still by natural physics, life will be common
among infinite Universes.
Any possible physical Univese in an infinite sea of Universes may occur.
And will occur.

God is not a logical idea and lends itself to being debunked almost
trivially.

The idea of infinite Universes is pure physics based on easily observed
physical processes.

We don't need god to understand this or cause it.

Well, no, maybe not. We know virtual particles pop in and out of existance.
There is then, a physics behind what we would percive as an empty vaccum.
It isn't really empty.
It is the physics behind this that allows not just vast numbers of particles
to come and go, but as has been proven in the lab, to occasionally interact
with this Universe physically.
And occasionally, you get particles big and powerful enough to set
off a chain reaction that creates a new Universe inside one where
one has this physics.
Apparently, we can expect something like this to happen randomly every
250 billion years or so.

I sometimes wonder if we are not like bugs under a bowl. We can study
what we can observe, but we can only speculate on what may lie beyond what
we can see. The bug scientists would have no way to know that a vast
universe lies beyond the inside of the bowl.

Speculation is not hopeless. Speculations on the nature of particles lead
the observation of actual virtual particles. Speculation on thermodynamics
lead to thought experiments like black body radiation that lead to the
discovery of quantum physics. Speculation is rarely a wild leap.
In science, the basic assumptions of science have been very successful
and allowed us to limit our speculations in a guided and limited
manner that leads us to real answers.
Not all scientific speculations pan out, but enough do we have
very real progress.
Its interesting to note that 2,500 years ago mankind considered
the stars and planets to be divine beings. Anaximander was
forced to flee for his life for saying they were firey masses.
Galileo some 2,000 years later was one of the first to turn the
telescope to the heavens. an imprisoned for his claims.
Only 70 years ago did Hubble discover the expanding Universe.
For once, a great discoverer was not oppressed by forces of religion
for his discoveries.
Only in at the turn of the 20th century did Einstein figure out relativity
and Planck invented quantum physics.
So we are doing OK for being "bugs". These things are not hopeless.
we now know our Universe is expanding, how big it is, how old it is.
We understand may of the basics of physics and are hot on the trail
of more.
A lot of work is being done on how a Universe full of island Universe's
works, its a good bet that that does exist. All in all not too shabby,
considering the main part of all of this was accomplished in only one
century.
Einstein, Planck, Hubble.
Google brane theory, find out what is going on now.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Jim07D5"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 02:00:08 PM

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> said:

Jim07D5 wrote:

marks542004@yahoo.com said:

Do you suppose they have this same issue of Intelligent Design, in
that universe?

Something has to be markedly different, between this universe and that
one, or the next,... if your (interesting) suggestion is not to lead
to an infinite number of nested universes.

Which is exactly what some physicists believe.

We live in an infinite hyper-Universe, of which this little
Island Universe is but one of an infinite number.

I struggle with the idea that there is an actual "infinite number" of
anything. Otherwise, I'm on board.

An
overwhelming majority of such universe are malformed, they
do not last long, many wink in and out of existant in milliseconds.
a few last longer, but not all will have life. The laws of each Universe
may differ wildly from others. Only the rarest of the rare Universe may
have life like ours. But with infinite Universes coming and going
we have infinite Universes with life similar to ours possible.
if only one Universe of a trillion, trillion, trillion has possibilty of
like, still by natural physics, life will be common among infinite
Universes.
Any possible physical Univese in an infinite sea of Universes may occur.
And will occur.

God is not a logical idea and lends itself to being debunked almost
trivially.

The idea of infinite Universes is pure physics based on
easily observed physical processes.

We don't need god to understand this or cause it.

In fact, the entity we imagine (or think we imagine) and call God
would make the infinite hyper-Universe.
--- Jim07D5
.

User: "Saul_Sabia"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 01:43:30 AM

I struggle with the idea that there is an actual "infinite number" of
anything. Otherwise, I'm on board.

there is also no evidence that these dimensions are necessarily
separate, if you know what i mean. i kinda favor the idea that if you
go to the 13th dimension, it would still reflect this reality, just in
another way.

In fact, the entity we imagine (or think we imagine) and call God
would make the infinite hyper-Universe.

pointing to something and caling it god doesn't do anything for us,
except maybe give us another security blanket. let me restate that...
if you point to something and ascribe to it sentience, moral authority,
omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, or any other such thing, it
had better have it. in other words, does it make sense to say "over
there is something we don't understand. let's make it our lord and
savior, and it's going to be our object of praise.. it will send us to
heaven or hell when we die!" when, in fact, all it is is a place, or a
collection of places?
that's like worshipping a mountain. talk about a step *backwards* in
human evolution.
Saul
.

User: "Jim07D5"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 09:48:16 AM

"Saul_Sabia" <saul_sabia@yahoo.com> said:

I struggle with the idea that there is an actual "infinite number" of
anything. Otherwise, I'm on board.

So "multiverse" or hyper-Universe" does not imply separate universes.
It really means a new conceptualization of the universe, such that
using the word "universe" becomes misleading. Gotcha.
<...>
--- Jim07D5
.

User: "WCB"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 12:15:18 PM

Jim07D5 wrote:

"Saul_Sabia" <saul_sabia@yahoo.com> said:

I struggle with the idea that there is an actual "infinite number" of
anything. Otherwise, I'm on board.

There would be a Universe, all that is, but inside, infinite island
Universes, such as ours. Not all Universe are successful, may possibly
wink in and out of existance in seconds.
Dimensions are mostly small, we do not experience them directly.
Science is now struggling to sort out all these
clues and understand how this all works.
No gods are needed.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Jim07D5"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 12:38:49 PM

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> said:

Jim07D5 wrote:

<...>

There would be a Universe, all that is, but inside, infinite island
Universes, such as ours. Not all Universe are successful, may possibly
wink in and out of existance in seconds.

It could be that some of those universes that "wink out in seconds"
have a whole lot more go on while they exist, than ours. Talking about
a given universe's winking out in seconds is, IMO. a way of saying
that not very much change occurs during its existence. A given
universe having duration in time could last a lot longer than, say,
ours, but have not much change happen because its parameters, while
making for more stability, do not allow for much to happen.
This reasoning, if you agree that it can be called reasoning, leads me
to believe that it is senseless to say that in the vast foam of
universes that come and go, only the ones with a long duration, have
very much chance for, say, life to evolve. Rather, its the case that
the ones whose parameters making for stability and the parameters
making for organization into life forms are such that the changes can
happen in the time available, will be the ones where life evolves. In
a sense. "long enough duration" only *means* that this life-friendly
combination of parameters obtains. The time will appear to be
adequate, and some might even consider the parameters to be
fine-tuned, in any such universe, even if it winks out in a few
seconds, from our POV. Ours might be seen to be a short-lived
universe, from some other POV.
--- Jim07D5
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 04:30:39 PM

In article <1124124316.434218.78320@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
tangerine_male@yahoo.com says...

Because it's fiction from a scientific point of view.

Your religion is the fiction, you hypocrite. Evolution is one of the
most tested theories in history and has stood up to all challengers,
including the idiotic, discredited nonsense you quote from the back of
your creationist cereal boxes.

Scientists are
ignoring their own work.

No, you're ignoring the scientific work in favor of the crackpot
theology and pseudoscience known as creationism.

It does not contradict a possible existence of god.

It does contradict the bible. Evolution is based on the horrible death
of previous mutated generations,

It doesn't require that the death be horrible. It might not even result
in death so much as just result in one mutation outbreeding another.
All things die and you can call it horrible if you wish. Since bacteria
aren't sentient, it's not clear that they can feel pain, so it would
only be higher organisms that were thusly affected.

this is not how a god of love would
create things.

Are tsunamis and earthquakes things that a "god of love" would design to
happen on the Earth that he supposedly created? Presuming the fictions
of your god and the manifest errors inherent in that view, how can you
be so sure that god wouldn't design natural laws so that they would be
capable of producing new organisms that could adapt to their
environment. Why was your god obligated to design natural laws in such a
way that new species could not spontaneously arise?

Not to mention the science of it is garbage.

But it should be mentioned that you don't know what the ***** you're
talking about.

How does the laws of nature make evolution work?

I've explained it to you in other posts. Mutations can be inherited,
particularly if they are part of the replication process itself.

THe laws of nature
only supports what is already made

So what you're saying is that absolutely nothing new, of any kind, has
ever resulted from a natural process. That's ludicrous. I suppose that
you've never seen a natural arch bridge or a volcanically formed island.
Your position sounds like a bunch of manure and even manure gets
converted back into the bodies of plants by *natural* processes.

, it does not make anything. In fact
the laws naturally tear things down, not build them up.

Ever heard of coral reefs, idiot? How about sea shells or pearls or
conglomerate rocks. Get an education, fool.

If I leave my
car outside for a while it doesnt start running better,

Does your car have the ability to replicate itself or breed with other
cars? Does it grow or replace its own own parts or have an immune
system? Then why don't you quit with the obviously false analogies?

it runs worse,
starts rusting and rotting, the engine ceases up, the oil dries out,
the gas evaporates, the breaks lock up, the paint fades (shall I go
on).

No, because it's irrelevant. Cars don't fuel themselves (at least most
present designs) but animals are autonomous and fuel themselves and are
far more flexible about the types of fuels they can use. Now I know you
can always claim they're just a "better design", but the reality is that
they differ from the "designs" you are describing precisely because they
can modify their themselves or their offspring to an extent. For
example, they can select the healthiest looking mates or can undergo
environmental mutagens which can then be passed on. If ANY change can
be passed on to a future generation then how can you say that the new
generation was still 100% "designed". You can't, because those
mutations were not designed. They sometimes are beneficial and get
introduced into the population. Now how can you be sure which traits
were designed and which weren't and don't give me that Irreducible
Complexity, because it's been thoroughly discredited as well.

It never gets better, it only gets worse unless an intelligent
entity up keeps it

No, actually, there are things that can break off a car that can make
them better suited to some environments. If you take off some of the
heavy panels then it can make the car faster. If the muffler breaks off
then that will make it louder, but it will also run at least a little
bit more efficiently, if noise is not an issue.

Nutcase conclusion! Evolution is based on science and not voodoo! Take
away legal support for the sciences and you are teleported back to the
stone age!

Evolution is not science, I keep hearing that there are mountains of
evidence for evolution, I have yet to see it.

That proves that you don't have an education on the subject of
evolution, but not that there is no evidence.

I keep hearing bacteria
getting resistant to antibiotics shows evololution, but it doesnt. Just
because the bateria already has resistance and out lives the others
that dont, how does that show evolution?

That's your claim, but what you forget is that the bacteria with the
resistance may be a new generation which mutated from a previous batch
of bacteria that had little or no resistance. It might be the only
survivor and then get's replicated through the population.

Again, you forget a crucial element. Suppose that the balls can produce
new generations of children and now the red balls have more breeding
capacity than the other colors. If, for some reason you don't like
selecting red, then after a while, there will be nothing but red balls
in the bag.

Design flaws, well you can call mutations design flaws, but I call them
mutations. Mutations always make bad things happen,

No, not always. Mutations can do pretty much anything. They can make
you short or tall. In some cases, having that trait would be
beneficial.

I never heard of
any good mutations. If you have let me know (and dont mention sickle
cell please).

Why? The disease is a bad thing, but the heterozygous case confers
greater resistance to malaria with little or no ill effect. The
homozygous, recessive trait is selected against. So why don't you want
people mentioning it, except because you don't understand the nature of
the evidence, that is?

Incorrect. Many such experiments result in live fruit flies.

None of them came out better off than the plain
old fruit fly they started out with,

First off, it would be their "offspring" who would be affected by the
mutations. You obviously don't know much about these experiments at
all.

none of them developed any new
organs, or better hearing, or vision, or any new abilities that
evolution said they would.
None developed the speed of a bionic man, or could jump tall buildings
in a single bound.

So because you had some moronically unrealistic standard that wasn't
met, therefore you conclude that evolution is false?

Evolution would have you think that getting bitten by a spider

People can develop resistance to venoms from immune reactions alone.

for
generations would make people turn into spider man, but yes it does
happen in the movies and the evoltion text books.

Too bad you've never read a text book on evolution, because you don't
know jack ***** about the subject.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "William Wingstedt"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	16 Aug 2005 12:15:32 PM

On 15 Aug 2005 09:45:16 -0700, "Shaggy" <tangerine_male@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Because it's fiction from a scientific point of view. Scientists are
ignoring their own work.

It does not contradict a possible existence of god.

It does contradict the bible.

The bible is a book written by hairless, bipedal apes capable of
abstract thought. What's the big deal about contradicting it?

Evolution is based on the horrible death
of previous mutated generations, this is not how a god of love would
create things. Not to mention the science of it is garbage.

So why does this "god of love" character of yours create deformed
babies? The hero of your campfire stories is a miserable failure.
Since you are making all this up anyway, why not at least try to
adhere to some sort of logical consistency? At least it would be
intellectually stimulating...

But naturally you are insisting on nonsense. Well, be it!

Nonsense?

It's amazing that people believe evolution. It's the only scientific
theory that requires legal support, without it Evolution would
collapse.

Nutcase conclusion! Evolution is based on science and not voodoo! Take
away legal support for the sciences and you are teleported back to the
stone age!

Design flaws, well you can call mutations design flaws, but I call them
mutations. Mutations always make bad things happen, I never heard of
any good mutations. If you have let me know (and dont mention sickle
cell please).

You heard of the fruit fly experiment, where scientists bombarded
millions of fruit flies with radiation to speed up mutation and their
evolution over several generations. What happenned, nothing but mutated
and dead fruit flies. None of them came out better off than the plain
old fruit fly they started out with, none of them developed any new
organs, or better hearing, or vision, or any new abilities that
evolution said they would.
None developed the speed of a bionic man, or could jump tall buildings
in a single bound.

Evolution would have you think that getting bitten by a spider for
generations would make people turn into spider man, but yes it does
happen in the movies and the evoltion text books.

Shaggy

User: "Apostate"
Title: Re: Let's bury Intelligent Design, once and for all	15 Aug 2005 09:44:11 PM

On 15 Aug 2005 09:45:16 -0700, "Shaggy" <tangerine_male@yahoo.com> wrote:

It does contradict the bible. Evolution is based on the horrible death
of previous mutated generations, this is not how a god of love would
create things. Not to mention the science of it is garbage.

I suspect you are trolling, so don't look for a protracted debate from me, but I'll take
on this much: "horrible death of previous mutated generations" is a misconception
you'd grow out of in the first week of studying a college-level introductory biology
course, even pitched at non-science students. (I insist on college-level only because I
take it as given that high school is an ill-adapted place to learn anything nowadays.) If
you make arguments that purport to attack a theory, you have to understand the theory
first if you don't want to make a fool of yourself.

How does the laws of nature make evolution work? THe laws of nature
only supports what is already made, it does not make anything.

How 'bout mountains? Do they count as 'anything'?
Hollows like the Grand Canyon, carved out of rock by the action of water over millennia?
Islands in the middle of the ocean, raised by undersea volcanoes?
What about planets (Earth, for instance) formed out of the condensing detritus of
stellar explosions too violent to imagine?

In fact
the laws naturally tear things down, not build them up. If I leave my
car outside for a while it doesnt start running better, it runs worse,
starts rusting and rotting, the engine ceases up, the oil dries out,
the gas evaporates, the breaks lock up, the paint fades (shall I go
on).

No need. Your car isn't an organism, or a whole population of them (which is more
relevant to evolutionary thought experiments.) It doesn't engage in reproduction,
so it has no opportunity for the slightly (fortuitously) inexact replication of a
template molecule like DNA to lead, on occasion, to small improvements in
adaptability to the emerging environment its offspring find themselves in.

If decay were so forced by the Laws of Nature, intelligent agency would count for nothing,
whether your grease-stained local mechanic or The Lord Yahweh is the maintainer.
Fortunately, the pseudo-law that drives decay operates to produce chaos unavoidably
only in situations where neglect and an absence of any fresh input of energy are facts
of 'life'.

<snip dialogue I don't participate in>

No, no. You