Re: Evolution has become a state religion

Religions > Atheism > Re: Evolution has become a state religion

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 35 of 60

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Katt"
Date:	31 Oct 2005 04:21:18 AM
Object:	Re: Evolution has become a state religion

<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130604306.826905.25140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Atheism is also a belief in non-existance of God

Nope. Stop lying about atheists.

and all beleivers in
atheism very strongly defend their belief, call it their narrow
mindedness or enlightment, it is no different than the passion people
expresses in their religious beliefs such as christianity.

I see: you now think you speak for all atheists as well as all Christians.
Fascinating symptom.

I separated
all beliefs including atheism. Looks like you are a narrow minded
person incapable of understanding intelligent arguments. Calling people
liars without provocation shows that you need to grow up.

You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
.

User: "Jason"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	19 Nov 2005 10:27:06 PM

In article <MPG.1de9c1cc7e2cbd90989c05@news.buckeye-express.com>, BDK
<kingratay@buckeye-express.com> wrote:

In article <jason-1711051958030001@pm4-broad-45.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com says...

In article <MPG.1de7162c11c98141989bf8@news.buckeye-express.com>, BDK
<kingratay@buckeye-express.com> wrote:

In article <jason-1711051313360001@pm4-broad-57.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com says...

In article <437cd097$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:

"If you are correct, how come we no longer see examples of this

in animals

that are alive (or have been alive) in the last 50 years? For

example, I

have not seen any articles in news magazines about animals that have
evoluted from one species to another."

Ah, but there are such reports and some can be found at the web

sites to

which you were directed. I have seen them in news reports also

because I

follow science news closely, Icr is not going to put them in their
newsletter, about the only thing you say you read and rely

upon. Another

demonstration of the poor quality and depth of knowledge on the

topics on

which you wax so freely, a complete freedom that ignorance allows.

Please tell me about one of those animals. Several weeks ago, I saw a
dog that looked more like a sheep than a dog. I should have asked the
person that was walking the dog what sort of dog it was. It's my guess
that if a vet. checked the genes of the strange looking dog that the
vet would tell me that it was a dog and not half sheep and half dog.
If you tell me about an animal that is in the process of evolving
into another species, please also include in your post what the
scientists have stated about the animal in regard to the genes.
Does the animal have the genes of two separate species?
Jason

Not really trying to be nasty, but..

Did you ever pay attention in science class? Ever?

A dog and a sheep can't mate and produce any offspring, only closely
related species like lions and tigers can mate and have a mixed result.
I'm sure you probably saw one of these, a Bedlington. It's just a dog
BRED (by us humans) to resemble a another species.

http://www.terrificpets.com/dog_breeds/Bedlington_Terrier.asp

Another thing you don't seem to understand is that nothing except
insects and the like can change fast enough for us to notice in our very
short lifetimes! Do you really think we are claiming that one day an ape
has a human baby?

I'm having a hard time believing you're seriously asking this stuff..

BDK

BDK,
I know that a dog and a sheep can't produce any offspring--that's basic
biology. I was just making a point. The point was that we should not make
judgements about species evolving into other species based on what animals
may appear to look like. I used the Bedlingon dog as a example. Just
because it looks a lot like a sheep--does not mean that it has any sheep
genes. I should have done a better job of explaining myself. Thanks for
telling me the breed name of that strange looking dog. I'll visit the sit.

Jason

When you try to make a point like that, it makes you seem totally
clueless, and makes us not want to take you seriously at all. And I
notice you didn't reply to my other points..

BDK

BDK,
Thanks for your post. You made an interesting comment about insects. You
are right. I seem to recall reading some research reports related to fruit
flies. They used fruit flies for the same reasons that you mentioned in
your post.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.

User: "Les Hellawell"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 02:39:02 PM

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Les,
You made some excellent points. As I have mentioned before,
we do have fossil evidence that supports creation science
--not macro-evolution. If macro-evolution was a valid theory,
there should be lots of different fossils revealing
transitional forms. That's not the case.
Jason

Not true, Jason.
You are assuming that the transitional forms hung around long enough to
become an important part of the fossil record. There are many natural
phenomena that happen in fits and starts. It is not unreasonable to
expect biological evolution to have progressed in the same manner.
Therefore, from one stage to a different one could have happened
quickly, leaving no record of the transition.
JP

JP,
If you are correct, how come we no longer see examples of this in animals
that are alive (or have been alive) in the last 50 years? For example, I
have not seen any articles in news magazines about animals that have
evoluted from one species to another.

In your lifetime? Even in only 50 years? Don't be ridiculous!
Mind you in that time several species have become extinct
because their environnment changed faster than thy could adapt.
Many species would be extinct now if we had not saved them.
Ever watched a glacier move? There are several examples of men
falling from a mountain into a glacier and not emerging at the other
end until at least fifty, maybe hundreds of years later*.
We started classifying plants only comparatively recently, in
terms of geological time, a classification that was a snapshot in
time freezing gradual change. Maybe in a thousand years you
can take another snapshot and see the changes that will have
taken over that time. In our lifetime? Far too short a time.
*A digression: For an amusing explanation of glacial movement
may I commend Mark Twain, "A tramp Abroad Vol 6", his account of
a journey around Europe and visit to Zermatt. It is wonderfully
ridiculous just like the claims of creationists. His silly story of
his attempt to climb the Matterhorn is just about as ridiculously
funny as it gets :-)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5787/5787-h/5787-h.htm
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.

User: "Jason"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 03:06:08 PM

In article <72ppn1dh1kiavh6mn5f5ucb2c18utuqerd@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In your lifetime? Even in only 50 years? Don't be ridiculous!

Mind you in that time several species have become extinct
because their environnment changed faster than thy could adapt.
Many species would be extinct now if we had not saved them.

Ever watched a glacier move? There are several examples of men
falling from a mountain into a glacier and not emerging at the other
end until at least fifty, maybe hundreds of years later*.

We started classifying plants only comparatively recently, in
terms of geological time, a classification that was a snapshot in
time freezing gradual change. Maybe in a thousand years you
can take another snapshot and see the changes that will have
taken over that time. In our lifetime? Far too short a time.

*A digression: For an amusing explanation of glacial movement
may I commend Mark Twain, "A tramp Abroad Vol 6", his account of
a journey around Europe and visit to Zermatt. It is wonderfully
ridiculous just like the claims of creationists. His silly story of
his attempt to climb the Matterhorn is just about as ridiculously
funny as it gets :-)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5787/5787-h/5787-h.htm

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
Thanks for your post. You must have failed to read the post that
are was responding to. It's posted above my post.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.

User: "Les Hellawell"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 05:45:20 PM

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:06:08 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <72ppn1dh1kiavh6mn5f5ucb2c18utuqerd@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In your lifetime? Even in only 50 years? Don't be ridiculous!

Mind you in that time several species have become extinct
because their environnment changed faster than thy could adapt.
Many species would be extinct now if we had not saved them.

Ever watched a glacier move? There are several examples of men
falling from a mountain into a glacier and not emerging at the other
end until at least fifty, maybe hundreds of years later*.

We started classifying plants only comparatively recently, in
terms of geological time, a classification that was a snapshot in
time freezing gradual change. Maybe in a thousand years you
can take another snapshot and see the changes that will have
taken over that time. In our lifetime? Far too short a time.

*A digression: For an amusing explanation of glacial movement
may I commend Mark Twain, "A tramp Abroad Vol 6", his account of
a journey around Europe and visit to Zermatt. It is wonderfully
ridiculous just like the claims of creationists. His silly story of
his attempt to climb the Matterhorn is just about as ridiculously
funny as it gets :-)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5787/5787-h/5787-h.htm

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
Thanks for your post. You must have failed to read the post that
are was responding to. It's posted above my post.

I hadn't actually, you are right, but I see no need to change
anything I said. As far as geological time is comcerned
quickly could be a much - to us - as a thousand years. I
would suspect that if a species does divide it would not
be an instant division but separated populations slowly
diverging in different ways in different environments to the
original species which may remain unchanged in the same
environment. Darwin studied this kind of separated aaption
in finches in the Galagos Isles though I don't know the
details. I am not an expert in evolution by any stretch of
the imsgination. For example a species could overpopulate
an area due to being well suited to to it forcing weaker
individuals into more marginal areas where life would
be very hard for them forcing them to adapt over time
adapt to survive. The may teeter on the brink of survival
for a long time until a more fitted adaption emerges. A
snapshot over fifty years might not show much if any
change, it is only the accumulation over greater time
spans - I suspect - where a species change is justified.
Can a Dachshund mate with a St. Bernard. I think they
might even have physical difficulty in merely attempting
to copulate and I cannot see a female Rottweiler
tolerating a male Poodle. How long did it take to selectively
breed these clearly distictive breeds from a common ancestor
to two clear sub or transitional species? Clear signs of transition
albeit artificially caused. There are, of course many possible
scenarios.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.

User: "Jason"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 09:27:53 PM

In article <bi4qn1d4bfn883tla5jec5lrijq6c6lhbc@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:06:08 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <72ppn1dh1kiavh6mn5f5ucb2c18utuqerd@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In your lifetime? Even in only 50 years? Don't be ridiculous!

Mind you in that time several species have become extinct
because their environnment changed faster than thy could adapt.
Many species would be extinct now if we had not saved them.

Ever watched a glacier move? There are several examples of men
falling from a mountain into a glacier and not emerging at the other
end until at least fifty, maybe hundreds of years later*.

We started classifying plants only comparatively recently, in
terms of geological time, a classification that was a snapshot in
time freezing gradual change. Maybe in a thousand years you
can take another snapshot and see the changes that will have
taken over that time. In our lifetime? Far too short a time.

*A digression: For an amusing explanation of glacial movement
may I commend Mark Twain, "A tramp Abroad Vol 6", his account of
a journey around Europe and visit to Zermatt. It is wonderfully
ridiculous just like the claims of creationists. His silly story of
his attempt to climb the Matterhorn is just about as ridiculously
funny as it gets :-)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5787/5787-h/5787-h.htm

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
Thanks for your post. You must have failed to read the post that
are was responding to. It's posted above my post.

I hadn't actually, you are right, but I see no need to change
anything I said. As far as geological time is comcerned
quickly could be a much - to us - as a thousand years. I
would suspect that if a species does divide it would not
be an instant division but separated populations slowly
diverging in different ways in different environments to the
original species which may remain unchanged in the same
environment. Darwin studied this kind of separated aaption
in finches in the Galagos Isles though I don't know the
details. I am not an expert in evolution by any stretch of
the imsgination. For example a species could overpopulate
an area due to being well suited to to it forcing weaker
individuals into more marginal areas where life would
be very hard for them forcing them to adapt over time
adapt to survive. The may teeter on the brink of survival
for a long time until a more fitted adaption emerges. A
snapshot over fifty years might not show much if any
change, it is only the accumulation over greater time
spans - I suspect - where a species change is justified.
Can a Dachshund mate with a St. Bernard. I think they
might even have physical difficulty in merely attempting
to copulate and I cannot see a female Rottweiler
tolerating a male Poodle. How long did it take to selectively
breed these clearly distictive breeds from a common ancestor
to two clear sub or transitional species? Clear signs of transition
albeit artificially caused. There are, of course many possible
scenarios.

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
Interesting post. It appears to be classical evolution theory.
I know that a vet could use the sperm from
a Dachshund to attempt to impregnate a female St. Bernard.
However, I don't know whether or not any baby dogs would
be born. Since they are both canines--I guess it's possible.
When a unique type of dog comes into the world--that's
not macro-evolution--that's micro-evolution.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.

User: "Les Hellawell"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	18 Nov 2005 07:49:01 AM

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:27:53 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <bi4qn1d4bfn883tla5jec5lrijq6c6lhbc@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:06:08 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <72ppn1dh1kiavh6mn5f5ucb2c18utuqerd@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In your lifetime? Even in only 50 years? Don't be ridiculous!

Mind you in that time several species have become extinct
because their environnment changed faster than thy could adapt.
Many species would be extinct now if we had not saved them.

Ever watched a glacier move? There are several examples of men
falling from a mountain into a glacier and not emerging at the other
end until at least fifty, maybe hundreds of years later*.

We started classifying plants only comparatively recently, in
terms of geological time, a classification that was a snapshot in
time freezing gradual change. Maybe in a thousand years you
can take another snapshot and see the changes that will have
taken over that time. In our lifetime? Far too short a time.

*A digression: For an amusing explanation of glacial movement
may I commend Mark Twain, "A tramp Abroad Vol 6", his account of
a journey around Europe and visit to Zermatt. It is wonderfully
ridiculous just like the claims of creationists. His silly story of
his attempt to climb the Matterhorn is just about as ridiculously
funny as it gets :-)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5787/5787-h/5787-h.htm

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
Thanks for your post. You must have failed to read the post that
are was responding to. It's posted above my post.

I hadn't actually, you are right, but I see no need to change
anything I said. As far as geological time is comcerned
quickly could be a much - to us - as a thousand years. I
would suspect that if a species does divide it would not
be an instant division but separated populations slowly
diverging in different ways in different environments to the
original species which may remain unchanged in the same
environment. Darwin studied this kind of separated aaption
in finches in the Galagos Isles though I don't know the
details. I am not an expert in evolution by any stretch of
the imsgination. For example a species could overpopulate
an area due to being well suited to to it forcing weaker
individuals into more marginal areas where life would
be very hard for them forcing them to adapt over time
adapt to survive. The may teeter on the brink of survival
for a long time until a more fitted adaption emerges. A
snapshot over fifty years might not show much if any
change, it is only the accumulation over greater time
spans - I suspect - where a species change is justified.
Can a Dachshund mate with a St. Bernard. I think they
might even have physical difficulty in merely attempting
to copulate and I cannot see a female Rottweiler
tolerating a male Poodle. How long did it take to selectively
breed these clearly distictive breeds from a common ancestor
to two clear sub or transitional species? Clear signs of transition
albeit artificially caused. There are, of course many possible
scenarios.

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
Interesting post. It appears to be classical evolution theory.

I know of no other kind.

I know that a vet could use the sperm from
a Dachshund to attempt to impregnate a female St. Bernard.
However, I don't know whether or not any baby dogs would
be born. Since they are both canines--I guess it's possible.
When a unique type of dog comes into the world--that's
not macro-evolution--that's micro-evolution.

Nor of 'macro' or 'micro' evolution, only evolution, that being
small changes over time. Any change that would be revolutionary
or catastrohic change would obviously not be evolutionary,
but then I am not 'au fair' with latest work in how species
evolve just that they have done
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 01:39:23 PM

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-1711051040130001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

How is your ignorance of science an argument against science?
.

User: "Jason"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 03:14:15 PM

In article <c2npn1pir2e59upjf6rq3kt171kr4k1geq@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-1711051040130001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

How is your ignorance of science an argument against science?

Did you bother reading the post that I was responding to?
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 03:44:19 PM

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:14:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-1711051314150001@pm4-broad-57.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <c2npn1pir2e59upjf6rq3kt171kr4k1geq@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-1711051040130001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

How is your ignorance of science an argument against science?

Did you bother reading the post that I was responding to?

Certainly. You claim that you have _not_ heard of animals that have
evolved from one species to another. That is a limitation of your
knowledge, not an argument against the existence of such species.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 06:57:47 PM

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-1711051040130001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Perhaps you need to read better papers. Or, heavens forbid, read the
scientific press. Or go to the www.talkorigins.org web site and browse
the "evolution" page. Speciation has been observed many times. You may
not see it, but people who actually look have.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Jason"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 09:29:01 PM

In article <sk9qn1tf3uee5khgag9jic9gu1gbb6hv4n@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-1711051040130001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Thanks for the advice. I'll bookmark the site.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.

User: "Les Hellawell"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	18 Nov 2005 05:27:50 AM

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:57:47 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-1711051040130001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:

In article <dlibgd$n4d$1@nntp.msstate.edu>, Jim Hutton
<nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Jason wrote:

I have already mentioned the British Natural History Museum in London,
the greatest collection of specimens in the world. Botanist explored
the world bringing back ships full of specimens. There are trays upon
trays of beetles all carefully ordered and classified. Thousands of
butterflys, moths and all and sundry.
How did they classify them? Did they check that each insect that
they classifed as a separate species was unable to mate and produce
offspring from all the other insect specimens? I very much doubt it!
So is it necessary true that one species cannot produce offspring
through mating with another species? Just try getting a Great Dane
to mate with one of those toy dogs that people carry in their arms,
and they are supposedly classed as the same species and capable
of producing offspring! I think there is a degree of arbitariness when
it comes to deciding one species from another and until very recently
DNA evidence was not available. The entire classification is just
a snapshot in time with every single living thing put in one species
or another. How do we know whether or not some of them really
aught to be regarded as transistional rather than a separate species
in its own right. Is a Great Dane transistional w.r.t. to a Poodle?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.

User: "Les Hellawell"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 12:18:29 PM

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:44:03 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <hlkon1phiqc0aafqbarvcgjjkph59c1ab9@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:17:13 -0800,

(Jason) wrote:

In article <437b9536$0$76285$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:

"The Bible does not discuss the mechanisms God used to create life"

Which makes cs irrelevant and equally irellevant appeals to scripture and
no reason to invent the entire cs set of fairy. tales about how it
happened in place of evolution.

No Jason they do not. The evidence they have seems to point to a
big-bang having occurred (the theory) and they are looking for
additional evidence down that path, which either demonstrates it as
true or false. This is research and exploration not worship, they do
not know what lies at the end of the path.

The
evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life despite not having
any proof about how it occurred.

Again they do not. This evolutionist does not have a clue. Darwin
believed the first life was created by a god but he believed this as
a Christian not because he thought it might be possible that
evolution occurred from this first simple life (as seems to have
beenamply demonstrated now)

Despite the above facts--the big band and evolution are theories.

Exactly, one tentative the other getting almost probably true.

The Bible does not reveal how God created life--but the Bible clearly
states that God did create life.

But does not state how it knows there is a god, where it got the
notion of a god from or that it created life. It is nothing more
than opinion. And like any opinion, whether it was expressed
yesterday or over 2000 years it it is only as good as the evidence
which supports it. If it has no evidence of anykind it is just
worthless and irrational belief.

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Sorry don't understand what you mean by "macro evolution"
all I know of is evolution..
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	16 Nov 2005 06:06:59 PM

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:17:13 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-1611051517130001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <437b9536$0$76285$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:

I disagree. The only examples that comes to mind are the big bang theory
and evolution theory.
The scientists don't have any facts to prove how the matter that exploded
came to be. They also don't know what caused the matter to explode.
However, those scientists believe that the big bang did occur. The
evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life despite not having
any proof about how it occurred.
Despite the above facts--the big band and evolution are theories.

Yes, they are theories because they are models that are consistent with
the evidence and make predictions for discoveries that have been
confirmed up to this point. That is why Creation Science is not a
theory. It's not even science.

The Bible does not reveal how God created life--but the Bible clearly
states that God did create life.

Why should I believe your interpretation of the Bible instead of the
physical evidence that most Christians accept?
.

User: "Jason"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	16 Nov 2005 08:23:28 PM

In article <hainn190e2fag7j68vi1ipgvsi4erc90qj@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:17:13 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-1611051517130001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <437b9536$0$76285$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:

The Bible does not reveal how God created life--but the Bible clearly
states that God did create life.

Why should I believe your interpretation of the Bible instead of the
physical evidence that most Christians accept?

You should not believe my interpretation of the Bible or the
interpretations of the Bible that have been done by other Christians. Read
the Bible and come up with your own interpretations. Some of the
scriptures are so clear that you don't need an interpretations. Here's an
example:
Gen 1:1 in the beginning God created the heaven and earth.
Gen 1:12 and God said, Let the earth bring forth [grass and fruit trees]
Gen 1:27 [God created man]
read the first chapter of Genesis. No interpretations are needed.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	17 Nov 2005 08:18:43 AM

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1611051823290001@pm1-broad-121.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip

You should not believe my interpretation of the Bible or the
interpretations of the Bible that have been done by other Christians. Read
the Bible and come up with your own interpretations.

Been there, done that. It's a myth.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	16 Nov 2005 09:35:43 PM

(Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1611051823290001@pm1-broad-121.snlo.dialup.fix.net:

In article <hainn190e2fag7j68vi1ipgvsi4erc90qj@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:17:13 -0800, in alt.atheism

(Jason) wrote in
<jason-1611051517130001@pm4-broad-44.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <437b9536$0$76285$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:

"The Bible does not discuss the mechanisms God used to create
life"

Which makes cs irrelevant and equally irellevant appeals to
scripture and no reason to invent the entire cs set of fairy.
tales about how it happened in place of evolution.

I disagree. The only examples that comes to mind are the big bang
theory and evolution theory.
The scientists don't have any facts to prove how the matter that
exploded came to be. They also don't know what caused the matter to
explode. However, those scientists believe that the big bang did
occur. The evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life
despite not having any proof about how it occurred.
Despite the above facts--the big band and evolution are theories.

Yes, they are theories because they are models that are consistent
with the evidence and make predictions for discoveries that have been
confirmed up to this point. That is why Creation Science is not a
theory. It's not even science.

The Bible does not reveal how God created life--but the Bible
clearly states that God did create life.

Why should I believe your interpretation of the Bible instead of the
physical evidence that most Christians accept?

You should not believe my interpretation of the Bible or the
interpretations of the Bible that have been done by other Christians.
Read the Bible and come up with your own interpretations. Some of the
scriptures are so clear that you don't need an interpretations. Here's
an example:
Gen 1:1 in the beginning God created the heaven and earth.
Gen 1:12 and God said, Let the earth bring forth [grass and fruit
trees] Gen 1:27 [God created man]
read the first chapter of Genesis. No interpretations are needed.

Indeed, those three verses in that order are quite sufficient to prove
that the fossil record contradicts the Bible.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.

User: "Jason"
Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion	16 Nov 2005 11:06:48 PM

In article <Xns9710E5FBF6045fstone69@213.155.197.138>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1611051823290001@pm1-broad-121.snlo.dialup.fix.net: