| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"IKnowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2004 10:18:17 AM |
| Object: |
Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
Placing Your Trust in Evolution
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely an opinion backed up
by hope and faith, is the basis for determining what are the mental
capasities of the adherents.
Those who hold religiously to this scientifically unsupportable opinion
have one underlying similatude:
Their feeble minds cannot imangine anything greater than themselves. They
have placed all their cereberal capacities in view of the world claiming
to know all but actually demonstrating how they have locked their minds
into a very small box. It comes down to who is in control and they
believe that by vaunting themselves they deminish any idea of something or
someone greater than themselves.
Of course they are in for a very great shock when they discover they are
not in control of much of anything in reality.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
19 Apr 2004 01:45:24 PM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the breeds of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
19 Apr 2004 01:56:15 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the breeds of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
It's also my understanding that the same mechanisms are constantly at work
in the influenza virus. Such is the reason one must get a new flu shot every
year.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
19 Apr 2004 07:31:29 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the breeds of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to "microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological organisms are
descended from a single organism in the distant past, by natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
19 Apr 2004 10:02:55 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Bb_gc.2970$e4.710@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the breeds of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to "microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological organisms
are descended from a single organism in the distant past, by natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything and whats more
there is no evidence for a god doing anything or even existing. You are
on a hiding to nothing bud.
LK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
19 Apr 2004 10:36:47 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Bb_gc.2970$e4.710@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the breeds of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to "microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological organisms
are descended from a single organism in the distant past, by natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything and whats
more
there is no evidence for a god doing anything or even existing. You
are
on a hiding to nothing bud.
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create things. The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world. On the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying to
macroevolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
19 Apr 2004 11:11:14 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
-- [snip]
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything
-- [snip]
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create things. The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world. On the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying to
macroevolution.
Eyewitness testimony does not automatically trump circumstantial evidence.
After all, we know from bitter experience that eyewitnesses can lie (even
about being eyewitnesses), or be honestly mistaken about what they observed,
or be misinterpreted. Eyewitness testimony needs interpretation and
inference as much as any other sort of evidence; we must try to reconstruct
a unique, unobserved event (the eyewitness's state of mind when he composed
the account) and try to infer what could have produced that state of mind.
And, even within our limited experience, there are obviously causes that can
produce accounts of events that never happened and that the self-described
"witness" did not witness.
Of course, there is no mention in the Bible (did you have some other
scriptures in mind) that the authors were actually eyewitnesses to any of
the events in Genesis. Certainly nothing in Genesis (unlike, e.g. large
parts of Nehemiah or Acts) claims to be an eyewitness account (it is not to
the point to say that *God* was the eyewitness -- the accounts don't state
that the accounts were given to the author by God, or give any explanation
for how the author came by the details).
Conversely, while there are no eyewitness accounts of, e.g. the common
descent of horses and rhinoceroses, or humans and chimps, from a common
ancestor (that would take millions of years of continuous observation and
reporting, before the invention of writing), there are other sorts of
evidence, from homologous pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses shared by
humans and other primates, to fossils that defy classification into
clear-cut "fully human" and "fully ape" categories.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 12:25:03 AM |
|
|
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10898n9b72fs95f@corp.supernews.com...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
-- [snip]
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything
-- [snip]
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world. On
the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying to
macroevolution.
Eyewitness testimony does not automatically trump circumstantial
evidence.
After all, we know from bitter experience that eyewitnesses can lie
(even
about being eyewitnesses), or be honestly mistaken about what they
observed,
or be misinterpreted.
The problem is that even "circumstantial evidence" is always reduced
down to personal testimony, which is subject to the same potential flaws
as eyewitness testimony. For example, the vast majority of people know
about evolutionism from books, articles and television or radio shows,
not because they have personally gone digging for fossils. Those books,
articles, radio and television shows are nothing more than personal
testimony.
For example, nobody alive "saw" Julius Caesar get murdered. But almost
everybody (who has heard about it, at least) has an unshakeable belief
that it happened in history, solely because they have been taught it
through the personal testimony of historians, who themselves have simply
believed the records that survive from that era.
This kind of secondary evidence is widely accepted. It is no different
in character from the thousands of scriptural accounts from all over the
world.
Eyewitness testimony needs interpretation and
inference as much as any other sort of evidence; we must try to
reconstruct
a unique, unobserved event (the eyewitness's state of mind when he
composed
the account) and try to infer what could have produced that state of
mind.
And, even within our limited experience, there are obviously causes
that can
produce accounts of events that never happened and that the
self-described
"witness" did not witness.
Or we could assume, as a matter of sanity, that people are generally
reporting more or less what actually happened, unless there are
extraordinary circumstances that lead us to suspect that they are
delusional or lying. The report should be evaluated, not by what it is
reporting, but by the quality of the report, and, if known, the
character of the reporter.
For example, a man reports seeing a flying saucer. His report should not
be dismissed just because we think "flying saucers are a myth". It
should only be dismissed if there are blatant contradictions in the
story, or if the man is known to be a habitual liar, or a drunk, or drug
addict, or has spent a lot of time in mental institutions, etc.
Otherwise, why not simply take his word for it?
Similarly, the reports of the scriptures should not be dismissed just
because we think "there is no God" but only if we find serious flaws in
the reports themselves, such as blatant contradictions, or if we know
from other sources that the person reporting them was crazy or a liar.
(I stress the word "blatant" because minor contradictions can easily be
the result of memory discrepancies, or hyperbole induced by excitement,
etc., as when a person can't remember if it was 5:00 or 4:30 when he saw
the saucer, or when the enthusiastic supporters of a cause claim that
there were a million marchers at a rally when there were only 100,000.
These kinds of things do not at all disprove the event itself).
Of course, there is no mention in the Bible (did you have some other
scriptures in mind) that the authors were actually eyewitnesses to any
of
the events in Genesis.
Well, somebody witnessed the world being created. And yes, there are
other scriptures than the Bible - the Vedas in particular - which do
"name names" and recount very detailed descriptions of God creating the
universes, the living creatures, etc....
Certainly nothing in Genesis (unlike, e.g. large
parts of Nehemiah or Acts) claims to be an eyewitness account (it is
not to
the point to say that *God* was the eyewitness -- the accounts don't
state
that the accounts were given to the author by God, or give any
explanation
for how the author came by the details).
Conversely, while there are no eyewitness accounts of, e.g. the common
descent of horses and rhinoceroses, or humans and chimps, from a
common
ancestor (that would take millions of years of continuous observation
and
reporting, before the invention of writing), there are other sorts of
evidence, from homologous pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses
shared by
humans and other primates, to fossils that defy classification into
clear-cut "fully human" and "fully ape" categories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 06:23:31 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Pu2hc.3408$e4.499@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10898n9b72fs95f@corp.supernews.com...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
-- [snip]
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything
-- [snip]
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world. On
the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying to
macroevolution.
Eyewitness testimony does not automatically trump circumstantial
evidence.
After all, we know from bitter experience that eyewitnesses can lie
(even
about being eyewitnesses), or be honestly mistaken about what they
observed,
or be misinterpreted.
The problem is that even "circumstantial evidence" is always reduced
down to personal testimony, which is subject to the same potential
flaws as eyewitness testimony.
Wrong as usual. Circumstantial evidence can be verified.
<SNIP>
For example, nobody alive "saw" Julius Caesar get murdered. But almost
everybody (who has heard about it, at least) has an unshakeable belief
that it happened in history, solely because they have been taught it
through the personal testimony of historians, who themselves have
simply believed the records that survive from that era.
Utter nonsense. I know of no historian or even any sane person who would
hold the assasination of Julius Caesar as an unshakeable belief. The
demise of Caesar is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence to
hand. If verifiable evidence where to become available showing that the
story was false then so be it. This actually tells you the difference
bewtween science and cretinism. Science goes where the evidence leads,
whereas cretinism denies all evidence contradicting their boodthirsty
book of bronze and iron age goat herder mythology.
Klazmon.
<Snip remaining blather from Chris>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 11:59:27 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D273E251461LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Pu2hc.3408$e4.499@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10898n9b72fs95f@corp.supernews.com...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
-- [snip]
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything
-- [snip]
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create
things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
On
the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying
to
macroevolution.
Eyewitness testimony does not automatically trump circumstantial
evidence.
After all, we know from bitter experience that eyewitnesses can lie
(even
about being eyewitnesses), or be honestly mistaken about what they
observed,
or be misinterpreted.
The problem is that even "circumstantial evidence" is always reduced
down to personal testimony, which is subject to the same potential
flaws as eyewitness testimony.
Wrong as usual. Circumstantial evidence can be verified.
<SNIP>
For example, nobody alive "saw" Julius Caesar get murdered. But
almost
everybody (who has heard about it, at least) has an unshakeable
belief
that it happened in history, solely because they have been taught it
through the personal testimony of historians, who themselves have
simply believed the records that survive from that era.
Utter nonsense. I know of no historian or even any sane person who
would
hold the assasination of Julius Caesar as an unshakeable belief. The
demise of Caesar is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence to
hand. If verifiable evidence where to become available showing that
the
story was false then so be it. This actually tells you the difference
bewtween science and cretinism. Science goes where the evidence leads,
whereas cretinism denies all evidence contradicting their boodthirsty
book of bronze and iron age goat herder mythology.
It's clear that you are neither a scientist nor an historian, nor do you
really know of any. Neither science nor history is done the way you
portray it. All scientists and historians, indeed all people everywhere,
take many facts as unshakably true on hearsay alone.
I won't respond to you any more, since you are obviously just making
things up to be contrary.
Have a nice yuga.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
21 Apr 2004 12:45:07 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Pcnhc.3097$eZ5.1991@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94D273E251461LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Pu2hc.3408$e4.499@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10898n9b72fs95f@corp.supernews.com...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
-- [snip]
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything
-- [snip]
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create
things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
On
the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying
to
macroevolution.
Eyewitness testimony does not automatically trump circumstantial
evidence.
After all, we know from bitter experience that eyewitnesses can
lie
(even
about being eyewitnesses), or be honestly mistaken about what they
observed,
or be misinterpreted.
The problem is that even "circumstantial evidence" is always
reduced down to personal testimony, which is subject to the same
potential flaws as eyewitness testimony.
Wrong as usual. Circumstantial evidence can be verified.
<SNIP>
For example, nobody alive "saw" Julius Caesar get murdered. But
almost
everybody (who has heard about it, at least) has an unshakeable
belief
that it happened in history, solely because they have been taught
it through the personal testimony of historians, who themselves
have simply believed the records that survive from that era.
Utter nonsense. I know of no historian or even any sane person who
would
hold the assasination of Julius Caesar as an unshakeable belief. The
demise of Caesar is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence to
hand. If verifiable evidence where to become available showing that
the
story was false then so be it. This actually tells you the difference
bewtween science and cretinism. Science goes where the evidence
leads, whereas cretinism denies all evidence contradicting their
boodthirsty book of bronze and iron age goat herder mythology.
It's clear that you are neither a scientist nor an historian, nor do
you really know of any.
Says the usenet loon who disagrees with every scientist alive LOL.
Neither science nor history is done the way you
portray it. All scientists and historians, indeed all people
everywhere, take many facts as unshakably true on hearsay alone.
Here you are projecting your own beliefs on others.
I won't respond to you any more,
You had no substantive responses, so it's no loss.
LK.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
21 Apr 2004 12:10:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:59:27 +0000 in episode
<Pcnhc.3097$eZ5.1991@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn>:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D273E251461LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Pu2hc.3408$e4.499@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10898n9b72fs95f@corp.supernews.com...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
-- [snip]
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything
-- [snip]
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create
things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
On
the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying
to
macroevolution.
Eyewitness testimony does not automatically trump circumstantial
evidence.
After all, we know from bitter experience that eyewitnesses can lie
(even
about being eyewitnesses), or be honestly mistaken about what they
observed,
or be misinterpreted.
The problem is that even "circumstantial evidence" is always reduced
down to personal testimony, which is subject to the same potential
flaws as eyewitness testimony.
Wrong as usual. Circumstantial evidence can be verified.
<SNIP>
For example, nobody alive "saw" Julius Caesar get murdered. But
almost
everybody (who has heard about it, at least) has an unshakeable
belief
that it happened in history, solely because they have been taught it
through the personal testimony of historians, who themselves have
simply believed the records that survive from that era.
Utter nonsense. I know of no historian or even any sane person who
would
hold the assasination of Julius Caesar as an unshakeable belief. The
demise of Caesar is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence to
hand. If verifiable evidence where to become available showing that
the
story was false then so be it. This actually tells you the difference
bewtween science and cretinism. Science goes where the evidence leads,
whereas cretinism denies all evidence contradicting their boodthirsty
book of bronze and iron age goat herder mythology.
It's clear that you are neither a scientist nor an historian, nor do you
really know of any. Neither science nor history is done the way you
portray it. All scientists and historians, indeed all people everywhere,
take many facts as unshakably true on hearsay alone.
Liar.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
22 Apr 2004 06:35:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:10:46 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:59:27 +0000 in episode
<Pcnhc.3097$eZ5.1991@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn>:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D273E251461LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Pu2hc.3408$e4.499@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10898n9b72fs95f@corp.supernews.com...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
-- [snip]
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything
-- [snip]
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create
things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
On
the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying
to
macroevolution.
Eyewitness testimony does not automatically trump circumstantial
evidence.
After all, we know from bitter experience that eyewitnesses can lie
(even
about being eyewitnesses), or be honestly mistaken about what they
observed,
or be misinterpreted.
The problem is that even "circumstantial evidence" is always reduced
down to personal testimony, which is subject to the same potential
flaws as eyewitness testimony.
Wrong as usual. Circumstantial evidence can be verified.
<SNIP>
For example, nobody alive "saw" Julius Caesar get murdered. But
almost
everybody (who has heard about it, at least) has an unshakeable
belief
that it happened in history, solely because they have been taught it
through the personal testimony of historians, who themselves have
simply believed the records that survive from that era.
Utter nonsense. I know of no historian or even any sane person who
would
hold the assasination of Julius Caesar as an unshakeable belief. The
demise of Caesar is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence to
hand. If verifiable evidence where to become available showing that
the
story was false then so be it. This actually tells you the difference
bewtween science and cretinism. Science goes where the evidence leads,
whereas cretinism denies all evidence contradicting their boodthirsty
book of bronze and iron age goat herder mythology.
It's clear that you are neither a scientist nor an historian, nor do you
really know of any. Neither science nor history is done the way you
portray it. All scientists and historians, indeed all people everywhere,
take many facts as unshakably true on hearsay alone.
Liar.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
alone". Therefore, I will assume that Chris is just an idiot.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
22 Apr 2004 07:00:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:59:27 +0000, Chris Devol wrote:
Utter nonsense. I know of no historian or even any sane person who
would
hold the assasination of Julius Caesar as an unshakeable belief. The
demise of Caesar is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence to
hand. If verifiable evidence where to become available showing that
the
story was false then so be it. This actually tells you the difference
bewtween science and cretinism. Science goes where the evidence leads,
whereas cretinism denies all evidence contradicting their boodthirsty
book of bronze and iron age goat herder mythology.
It's clear that you are neither a scientist nor an historian, nor do you
really know of any. Neither science nor history is done the way you
portray it. All scientists and historians, indeed all people everywhere,
take many facts as unshakably true on hearsay alone.
It is true that many scientists believe in some things on faith, such as
belief in God. However, when acting *as scientists*, there is no such
thing as an "unshakable truth." Perhaps you have heard of the obscure
scientist named Galileo, who shook Aristotle's "unshakably true" theory of
movement, or Einstein, who shook Newton's "unshakably true" laws of
motion. The fact is that every theory, no matter how well accepted, is
always revisable if new evidence is found.
I won't respond to you any more, since you are obviously
just making
things up to be contrary.
Have a nice yuga.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 08:20:42 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:Pu2hc.3408$e4.499@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10898n9b72fs95f@corp.supernews.com...
-- [snip]
Eyewitness testimony does not automatically trump circumstantial
evidence.
After all, we know from bitter experience that eyewitnesses can lie
(even
about being eyewitnesses), or be honestly mistaken about what they
observed, or be misinterpreted.
The problem is that even "circumstantial evidence" is always reduced
down to personal testimony, which is subject to the same potential flaws
as eyewitness testimony. For example, the vast majority of people know
about evolutionism from books, articles and television or radio shows,
not because they have personally gone digging for fossils. Those books,
articles, radio and television shows are nothing more than personal
testimony.
In passing, please note that the primary evidence for evolution is, oddly
enough, not from fossils, but from the details of biology of currently
living species. But, yes, one can misrepresent, accidentally or
deliberately, circumstantial evidence. Piltdown man comes to mind; the
bones would not have been regarded as relevant to human origins had their
own history (altered and planted at a fossil site) been given to their
interpreter. Indeed, in criminal law, the argument comes up fairly often
that the prosecution has misinterpreted, e.g. the DNA evidence. The usual
defense plea is not, though, "ignore the evidence," but "let us do our own
tests." By the same token, the evidence cited for common descent can and on
many occasions (again, Piltdown man comes to mind) been reexamined. There
is no way to get new eyewitness accounts of the Flood, or creation; in
contrast, new observations of physical evidence from the history of life and
new accounts of them are possible.
For example, nobody alive "saw" Julius Caesar get murdered. But almost
everybody (who has heard about it, at least) has an unshakeable belief
that it happened in history, solely because they have been taught it
through the personal testimony of historians, who themselves have simply
believed the records that survive from that era.
Actually, as Llanzlan Kazman has pointed out, the belief in Caesar's
assassination could be shaken by sufficiently compelling evidence to the
contrary -- e.g. manuscripts carbon-dated to the first century mentioning
him as alive several years after 44 BC. The accounts are believed not
merely because they are consistent within themselves, but because they are
consistent with each other and with various physical evidence (coins,
inscriptions on buildings, etc.).
This kind of secondary evidence is widely accepted. It is no different
in character from the thousands of scriptural accounts from all over the
world.
Except that the accounts of Caesar's assassination don't contradict either
other historical accounts of his rule, or archaeological evidence, or other
sorts of physical evidence. The various creation accounts don't agree with
each other, either in historical or theological detail (did the Earth
originate six thousand years ago, as a literal reading of the Bible might
indicate, or two billion plus years ago, as some Hindu writings assert?),
nor do accounts of separate origins of different taxa accord with accounts
of the physical evidence.
Eyewitness testimony needs interpretation and
inference as much as any other sort of evidence; we must try to
reconstruct
a unique, unobserved event (the eyewitness's state of mind when he
composed
the account) and try to infer what could have produced that state of
mind.
And, even within our limited experience, there are obviously causes
that can
produce accounts of events that never happened and that the
self-described
"witness" did not witness.
Or we could assume, as a matter of sanity, that people are generally
reporting more or less what actually happened, unless there are
extraordinary circumstances that lead us to suspect that they are
delusional or lying. The report should be evaluated, not by what it is
reporting, but by the quality of the report, and, if known, the
character of the reporter.
The quality of the report (unless you mean to assert that literary
excellence is the best mark of truth, which seems implausible) is to be
determined by how well it accords with other, independent evidence. And
there is nothing terribly extraordinary about assuming that if you have ten
lines of evidence supporting one conclusion, and one alleged eyewitness
account supporting a contrary one, that the eyewitness account is wrong.
For example, a man reports seeing a flying saucer. His report should not
be dismissed just because we think "flying saucers are a myth". It
should only be dismissed if there are blatant contradictions in the
story, or if the man is known to be a habitual liar, or a drunk, or drug
addict, or has spent a lot of time in mental institutions, etc.
Otherwise, why not simply take his word for it?
Where did he see the saucer? Did anyone else see it? Are there any radar
reports of an object in the sky (or evidence of an object on the ground) in
the area? If one person reports seeing a flying saucer, and ten other
people report ten other things, and still other observers in the same area
report nothing noteworthy, should we still simply take his word for it, no
matter how reliable we've found him on other matters? Or, suppose we assume
he's being truthful, to the best of his ability. What, in our experience,
could produce the observations he interpreted as a saucer (e.g. swamp gas,
or reflections off the wings of gulls, or experimental aircraft, or
whatnot)? One might conclude that he is quite truthfully reporting an
observation of something that is not a flying saucer.
Similarly, the reports of the scriptures should not be dismissed just
because we think "there is no God" but only if we find serious flaws in
the reports themselves, such as blatant contradictions, or if we know
from other sources that the person reporting them was crazy or a liar.
Do only contradictions within the scriptures count (not that these can't be
found), or do contradictions between scriptures, or between scriptures and
the rest of reality, count? It is hardly the case that all evolutionists
are atheists, or that evolution is accepted only because creation is ruled
out _a priori_. Evolution is accepted because common descent explains the
nested hierarchy of life, the fossil record, shared pseudogenes, etc., which
are not explained by any form of creationism.
(I stress the word "blatant" because minor contradictions can easily be
the result of memory discrepancies, or hyperbole induced by excitement,
etc., as when a person can't remember if it was 5:00 or 4:30 when he saw
the saucer, or when the enthusiastic supporters of a cause claim that
there were a million marchers at a rally when there were only 100,000.
These kinds of things do not at all disprove the event itself).
-- [snip]
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
21 Apr 2004 08:31:27 PM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
For example, nobody alive "saw" Julius Caesar get murdered. But almost
everybody (who has heard about it, at least) has an unshakeable belief
that it happened in history, solely because they have been taught it
through the personal testimony of historians, who themselves have simply
believed the records that survive from that era.
That's odd. I've never had Caesarists come up to me on the street and
demand that I accept Caesar as my personal savior, nor have I heard
of Caesarists demanding that our history curriculum be adjusted to suit
their ends.
Also, is my belief in the assassination of Caesar unskakable?
Certainly not.
This kind of secondary evidence is widely accepted. It is no different
in character from the thousands of scriptural accounts from all over the
world.
Three problems:
1. Scriptural accounts would demand that I believe claims that contradict
scientific law. It's no violation of scientific law for Caesar to get
stabbed.
2. I don't arrange my life according to the assassination of Caesar. Were
there to be new historical evidence that he never lived, or was not
assassinated, my change of belief would not affect very much of my
life.
3. When was the earliest written record of the Crucifixion?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
21 Apr 2004 08:36:05 PM |
|
|
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in
news:408723DB.3060406@sc.rr.com:
That's odd. I've never had Caesarists come up to me on the street
and demand that I accept Caesar as my personal savior, nor have I
heard of Caesarists demanding that our history curriculum be
adjusted to suit their ends.
Yeah, but they won't leave me alone about eating their stupid salads.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 12:30:35 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Bb_gc.2970$e4.710@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the breeds of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to "microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological organisms
are descended from a single organism in the distant past, by natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything and whats
more
there is no evidence for a god doing anything or even existing. You
are
on a hiding to nothing bud.
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create things. The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
You don't mean that collection of mythology of unknown authorship,
censorship, redaction and translation known as the bible. If so then that
doesn't even count as hearsay. Find some real evidence if you want to
convince anyone.
On the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying to
macroevolution.
The fossil record. Its written in solid rock by mother nature. The
evidence is also written in your genes. That isn't some story that some
raving lunatic priest made up and conned a bunch of sheep to believe.
It's the real thing, actual evidence.
Heres a summary for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
LK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 01:00:09 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1B21EC378LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Bb_gc.2970$e4.710@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the breeds
of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to
"microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological
organisms
are descended from a single organism in the distant past, by
natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything and whats
more
there is no evidence for a god doing anything or even existing. You
are
on a hiding to nothing bud.
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
You don't mean that collection of mythology of unknown authorship,
censorship, redaction and translation known as the bible. If so then
that
doesn't even count as hearsay. Find some real evidence if you want to
convince anyone.
No. I mean the generally reliable collections of true accounts of man's
past and the past of the universe at large, written by thoroughly
civilized men, with inconsequential variations in, redaction, and
translation.
On the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying to
macroevolution.
The fossil record. Its written in solid rock by mother nature. The
evidence is also written in your genes. That isn't some story that
some
raving lunatic priest made up and conned a bunch of sheep to believe.
It's the real thing, actual evidence.
The "fossil record" is not "written" at all. Nor does it present any
evidence whatsoever of macroevolution. Neither is there anything in the
genes that is evidence of macroevolution. Inspector Clouseau is a better
scientist than the drooling doofuses of Darwinism, who are only telling
stories to justify their desire to behave as apes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 01:28:59 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:J%2hc.3432$e4.2427
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1B21EC378LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Bb_gc.2970$e4.710@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the breeds
of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to
"microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological
organisms
are descended from a single organism in the distant past, by
natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything and whats
more
there is no evidence for a god doing anything or even existing. You
are
on a hiding to nothing bud.
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
You don't mean that collection of mythology of unknown authorship,
censorship, redaction and translation known as the bible. If so then
that
doesn't even count as hearsay. Find some real evidence if you want to
convince anyone.
No. I mean the generally reliable collections of true accounts of man's
past and the past of the universe at large, written by thoroughly
civilized men, with inconsequential variations in, redaction, and
translation.
Such accounts as you describe don't exist.
On the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying to
macroevolution.
The fossil record. Its written in solid rock by mother nature. The
evidence is also written in your genes. That isn't some story that
some
raving lunatic priest made up and conned a bunch of sheep to believe.
It's the real thing, actual evidence.
The "fossil record" is not "written" at all.
Sure it is. A brainwashed sheep probably can't grasp the concept of
metaphore so I wont bother to explain.
Nor does it present any
evidence whatsoever of macroevolution.
It shows that different species existed at different times on the earth and
also clear evidence of transitional forms between these species over time.
This is backed up by the genetic data that shows the same nested
relationships as shown by the fossil morphology. Your denial of this as
evidence, merely shows that you are dismissing the data for emotional
reasons. Perhaps you fit in the raving lunatic priest camp or maybe a
brainwashed sheep.
http://www.tolweb.org
Neither is there anything in the
genes that is evidence of macroevolution.
Well here is an example. Humans and chimps share a sequence of broken
retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same position into their
chromosomes. This shows that all humans and chimps have inherited this DNA
from a single infected germ cell line i.e they share a common ancestor.
Inspector Clouseau is a better
scientist than the drooling doofuses of Darwinism, who are only telling
stories to justify their desire to behave as apes.
Well apes generally behave far better than your typical priest or
brainwashed sheep.
LK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 02:00:08 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1BC059548BLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:J%2hc.3432$e4.2427
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D1B21EC378LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Bb_gc.2970$e4.710@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the
breeds
of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to
"microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological
organisms
are descended from a single organism in the distant past, by
natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything and
whats
more
there is no evidence for a god doing anything or even existing.
You
are
on a hiding to nothing bud.
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create
things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
You don't mean that collection of mythology of unknown authorship,
censorship, redaction and translation known as the bible. If so
then
that
doesn't even count as hearsay. Find some real evidence if you want
to
convince anyone.
No. I mean the generally reliable collections of true accounts of
man's
past and the past of the universe at large, written by thoroughly
civilized men, with inconsequential variations in, redaction, and
translation.
Such accounts as you describe don't exist.
They do, as their subject matter indicates. But I gather you haven't
studied them.
On the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying
to
macroevolution.
The fossil record. Its written in solid rock by mother nature. The
evidence is also written in your genes. That isn't some story that
some
raving lunatic priest made up and conned a bunch of sheep to
believe.
It's the real thing, actual evidence.
The "fossil record" is not "written" at all.
Sure it is. A brainwashed sheep probably can't grasp the concept of
metaphore so I wont bother to explain.
Your metaphor is bogus, since a book with 99.9 percent of the letters
missing on every page is useless.
Nor does it present any
evidence whatsoever of macroevolution.
It shows that different species existed at different times on the
earth and
also clear evidence of transitional forms between these species over
time.
This is a bluff. Different species existing at different times on the
earth does not in any way imply macroevolution. Moreover, there is no
evidence whatsoever of "transitional" forms in the fossils. There is
only evidence of common design patterns, some of which are deliberately
misidentified as "transitional" solely to promote the bogus idea of
macroevolution.
This is backed up by the genetic data that shows the same nested
relationships as shown by the fossil morphology. Your denial of this
as
evidence, merely shows that you are dismissing the data for emotional
reasons. Perhaps you fit in the raving lunatic priest camp or maybe a
brainwashed sheep.
Another bluff. "Nested relationships" is only a misidentification of
common design patterns, again for the sole purpose of maintaining the
pretense of macroevolution.
Neither is there anything in the
genes that is evidence of macroevolution.
Well here is an example. Humans and chimps share a sequence of broken
retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same position into their
chromosomes. This shows that all humans and chimps have inherited this
DNA
from a single infected germ cell line i.e they share a common
ancestor.
Another bluff. It is evidence of common design only. The only
"inheritance" it actually shows is from human DNA to human DNA, and Ape
DNA to Ape DNA. The bogus idea of "common ancestor" is a fantasy
invented to maintain the pretense of macroevolution.
Inspector Clouseau is a better
scientist than the drooling doofuses of Darwinism, who are only
telling
stories to justify their desire to behave as apes.
Well apes generally behave far better than your typical priest or
brainwashed sheep.
That is not a fact. Humans who actually follow genuine religious
principles behave far better than animals. You must be referring to
religious fanatics, such as atheistic scientists or radical
evolutionists, who think nothing of murdering entire "inferior" races
for the sake of their "scientific" theories.
I'm still betting on Inspector Clouseau. Dawkins and Gould can kiss my
black hole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 08:49:07 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in message
news:YT3hc.3466$e4.652@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1BC059548BLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
-- [snip]
It shows that different species existed at different times on the
earth and
also clear evidence of transitional forms between these species over
time.
This is a bluff. Different species existing at different times on the
earth does not in any way imply macroevolution. Moreover, there is no
evidence whatsoever of "transitional" forms in the fossils. There is
only evidence of common design patterns, some of which are deliberately
misidentified as "transitional" solely to promote the bogus idea of
macroevolution.
Noting that different species existed at different times would not, indeed,
imply common descent. But noting that the taxa of the geologically recent
past are more like modern taxa than are those found in older sediments is
strongly suggestive. The older the sediments (you don't seem to be arguing
that the geological column is grossly misinterpreted by geologists), the
fewer modern species, genera, families, orders, or even classes are
represented in it, and the more taxa with no living representatives. That
is not merely a change in the mix of species over time, that is a mix of
species becoming more modern -- even though the climate (as evidenced by the
types of sediment and plants present) changes back and forth over time,
rather than becoming steadily more like the modern climate.
And some of those "common design patterns" are also rather suggestive.
Early whales show more common design patterns -- e.g. hind legs, or
relatively small skulls -- with land mammals than do later whales. Early
birds show more common design patterns with small theropods than do modern
birds. Early hominines have smaller brains, larger eye ridges, weaker chins
(and stronger jaws) than we do -- all more "apelike" traits.
This is backed up by the genetic data that shows the same nested
relationships as shown by the fossil morphology. Your denial of this
as
evidence, merely shows that you are dismissing the data for emotional
reasons. Perhaps you fit in the raving lunatic priest camp or maybe a
brainwashed sheep.
Another bluff. "Nested relationships" is only a misidentification of
common design patterns, again for the sole purpose of maintaining the
pretense of macroevolution.
Your assertion seems very unlikely. The nested hierarchy of life -- species
grouped in genera sharing many traits with each other than they don't share
with other genera, grouped in orders united by a smaller number of unique
shared traits, and so on -- was noted by Karl von Linne in the 18th century.
He was not any sort of evolutionist, and never seems to have hinted that
humans shared ancestry with other primates.
Note that "nested relationships" refers not merely to common design, but to
deviations from common design. Take, e.g. the enzyme cytochrome-c.
Versions of this enzyme are used in respiration in species from human to oak
to amoeba to bacterium. It serves exactly the same function in all species,
yet the design is not quite "common." Humans and chimps have identical
cytochrome-c. Human and baboon versions differ by one amino acid. Our
cytochrome-c is rather less similar to cow cytochrome-c, and so forth. One
can construct a tree of similarities and differences of different sorts of
cytochrome-c, and it agrees very closely with trees formed by comparisons of
other proteins, or genes, or morphological traits. Common descent with
modification can explain both the similarities (modified inheritances of
features present in common ancestors) and the differences (the common
features were modified in the course of descent).
Neither is there anything in the
genes that is evidence of macroevolution.
Well here is an example. Humans and chimps share a sequence of broken
retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same position into their
chromosomes. This shows that all humans and chimps have inherited this
DNA from a single infected germ cell line i.e they share a common
ancestor.
Another bluff. It is evidence of common design only. The only
"inheritance" it actually shows is from human DNA to human DNA, and Ape
DNA to Ape DNA. The bogus idea of "common ancestor" is a fantasy
invented to maintain the pretense of macroevolution.
Actually, I don't think anyone's checked human remains from thousands of
years ago (and I don't think there *are* chimp remains from thousands of
years ago) to check for these retroviruses. Again, the similarities between
these bits of noncoding DNA is a poor argument for common design. If common
design were the explanation for the similarities, one would expect, e.g.
that human, chimp, and baboon LGGLO pseudogenes would be equally similar,
rather than human and chimp pseudogenes to resemble each other more than
either does the baboon. One would also anticipate that all these
pseudogenes would share "common design" with the LGGLO pseudogene of guinea
pigs, but the guinea pig gene is disabled by a different mutation than that
which disables primate LGGLO pseudogenes.
-- [snip]
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 06:51:32 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:00:08 +0000, Chris Devol wrote:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1BC059548BLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:J%2hc.3432$e4.2427
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D1B21EC378LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Bb_gc.2970$e4.710@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely an
opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the
breeds
of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to
"microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological
organisms
are descended from a single organism in the distant past, by
natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything and
whats
more
there is no evidence for a god doing anything or even existing.
You
are
on a hiding to nothing bud.
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create
things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
You don't mean that collection of mythology of unknown authorship,
censorship, redaction and translation known as the bible. If so
then
that
doesn't even count as hearsay. Find some real evidence if you want
to
convince anyone.
No. I mean the generally reliable collections of true accounts of
man's
past and the past of the universe at large, written by thoroughly
civilized men, with inconsequential variations in, redaction, and
translation.
Such accounts as you describe don't exist.
They do, as their subject matter indicates. But I gather you haven't
studied them.
On the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying
to
macroevolution.
The fossil record. Its written in solid rock by mother nature. The
evidence is also written in your genes. That isn't some story that
some
raving lunatic priest made up and conned a bunch of sheep to
believe.
It's the real thing, actual evidence.
The "fossil record" is not "written" at all.
Sure it is. A brainwashed sheep probably can't grasp the concept of
metaphore so I wont bother to explain.
Your metaphor is bogus, since a book with 99.9 percent of the letters
missing on every page is useless.
Nor does it present any
evidence whatsoever of macroevolution.
It shows that different species existed at different times on the
earth and
also clear evidence of transitional forms between these species over
time.
This is a bluff. Different species existing at different times on the
earth does not in any way imply macroevolution. Moreover, there is no
evidence whatsoever of "transitional" forms in the fossils. There is only
evidence of common design patterns, some of which are deliberately
misidentified as "transitional" solely to promote the bogus idea of
macroevolution.
This is backed up by the genetic data that shows the same nested
relationships as shown by the fossil morphology. Your denial of this
as
evidence, merely shows that you are dismissing the data for emotional
reasons. Perhaps you fit in the raving lunatic priest camp or maybe a
brainwashed sheep.
Another bluff. "Nested relationships" is only a misidentification of
common design patterns, again for the sole purpose of maintaining the
pretense of macroevolution.
Neither is there anything in the
genes that is evidence of macroevolution.
Well here is an example. Humans and chimps share a sequence of broken
retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same position into their
chromosomes. This shows that all humans and chimps have inherited this
DNA
from a single infected germ cell line i.e they share a common
ancestor.
Another bluff. It is evidence of common design only. The only
"inheritance" it actually shows is from human DNA to human DNA, and Ape
DNA to Ape DNA. The bogus idea of "common ancestor" is a fantasy invented
to maintain the pretense of macroevolution.
Inspector Clouseau is a better
scientist than the drooling doofuses of Darwinism, who are only
telling
stories to justify their desire to behave as apes.
Well apes generally behave far better than your typical priest or
brainwashed sheep.
That is not a fact. Humans who actually follow genuine religious
principles behave far better than animals. You must be referring to
religious fanatics, such as atheistic scientists or radical evolutionists,
who think nothing of murdering entire "inferior" races for the sake of
their "scientific" theories.
I'm still betting on Inspector Clouseau. Dawkins and Gould can kiss my
black hole.
Your loyalty to such a weak theory as Creationism, against the mountains
of strong evidence in support of evolution, is an important lesson for
everyone: people can justify most any belief, and often cannot be
dissuaded by logic and facts. That is why scientists rigorously
scrutinize each others work: to make sure that the facts mean what they
think they mean. OTOH, religion is more of a shared delusion, where only
those who believe in the delusion are welcome to voice their opinion. At
least infidels can now speak up without fear of being tortured to death.
Your inability to accept the simple, and innocuous, fact of evolution is a
powerful testament to the inherent irrationality of the human mind, and
reminds us of the importance of recognizing and dealing with it as our
knowledge advances.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution |
20 Apr 2004 10:41:55 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Placing Your Trust in Evolution
Newsgroups:
TelstraClear:alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.reli
gion.christian.roman-
catholic,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.
atheism
To: Chris Devol <xyz@defghijk.lmn>
References: <IKnowHim-1904040818170001@pm6-20.kalama.com>
<y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com> <Bb_gc.2970$e4.710
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@
203.97.37.6> <jV0hc.3281$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<Xns94D1B21EC378LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6> <J%2hc.3432$e4.2427
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <Xns94D1BC059548BLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@
203.97.37.6> <YT3hc.3466$e4.652@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:05:29 +1200
Lines: 210
X-ID: <Default> Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net
Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net Llurd Government
LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn C:\Program Files\Xnews\sig.txt
X-Status: 20
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:YT3hc.3466$e4.652
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1BC059548BLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:J%2hc.3432$e4.2427
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D1B21EC378LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in news:jV0hc.3281$e4.2587
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns94D199159C83DLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
"Chris Devol" <xyz@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
news:Bb_gc.2970$e4.710@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_SdnWRu5N6qgBndRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote
The imaginary concept of evolution, which is merely
an opinion backed up by hope and faith,
It's actually an observed fact.
Micro evolution, for example, is demonstrated in all the
breeds
of
domestic dogs & cats, as well as the wheat your bread is made
from.
This is the standard bluff of shifting the topic to
"microevolution"
when it is obvious to all that what is being talked about is
macroevolution, or the concept that all current biological
organisms
are descended from a single organism in the distant past, by
natural
selection and random variation.
That has never been observed, and never will be observed.
Yet there is mountains of evidence for it and more being
discovered
every day. Whereas no one has seen a god create anything and
whats
more
there is no evidence for a god doing anything or even existing.
You
are
on a hiding to nothing bud.
That is not a fact. Many, many people have seen God create
things.
The
record of their observations is in the scriptures of the world.
You don't mean that collection of mythology of unknown authorship,
censorship, redaction and translation known as the bible. If so
then
that
doesn't even count as hearsay. Find some real evidence if you want
to
convince anyone.
No. I mean the generally reliable collections of true accounts of
man's
past and the past of the universe at large, written by thoroughly
civilized men, with inconsequential variations in, redaction, and
translation.
Such accounts as you describe don't exist.
They do, as their subject matter indicates. But I gather you haven't
studied them.
Where is your evidence.
On the
other hand, there are no ancient records of any kind testifying
to
macroevolution.
The fossil record. Its written in solid rock by mother nature. The
evidence is also written in your genes. That isn't some story that
some
raving lunatic priest made up and conned a bunch of sheep to
believe.
It's the real thing, actual evidence.
The "fossil record" is not "written" at all.
Sure it is. A brainwashed sheep probably can't grasp the concept of
metaphore | | | | | | | | | |
