| 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 |
06 Nov 2005 05:29:00 PM |
|
|
In article <8iqsm11nalack13l1hrq56tf8oru9c1q7d@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:22:12 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <c8dsm1lkn5gtdrm0s7km5v9nniq26sib4j@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:07:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0511052207210001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <v95rm15j8keh4vvf0t2r4m9bo4l0m6ibnc@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:44:11 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
When I was in high school, the teachers spent more time teaching
from the
textbooks than from prepared lectures.
This, in and of itself, probably explains to a significant degree the
source of your ignorance.
That's funny. I only wish my parents were rich enough to send me to a
Christian school where I could have had the freedom to learn about
creation science and evolution.
Creation Science is intentional ignorance. There is absolutely no
physical evidence to support this doctrine.
Instead, the high school biology
teacher tried to brainwash us by teaching us evolution. The brain-
washing worked well on most of the people in this newsgroup. I guess
that my bad teachers were not very good brainwashers.
It's about facts. You refuse to accept them and then insult all who do
accept the facts. Why?
For the same reasons that Galileo and Copernicus done the same thing. They
were of the opinion that they were right despite the fact that all of the
other scientists (and establishment) told them they were wrong.
They were observers who reported what they *actually* saw. Buy
yourself a telescope and you will be able to see what they saw as
well.
Evolution
is the modern day "establishment" or "big brother". It does not matter to
me that the majority of science professors disagree with me. The vast
majority of the people in America agree with me.
Have they observed what 'evolutionists' observed or just accepted
what they have been told without question? How many geological
field trips have you been on to study fossils in situ? How many has
the average USA'er. How many understand the evolutionary mrchanism
that we all possess and what makes us unique individuals. If flora
and fauna do not evolve, why do they have such evolutionary
mechanisms. Why are we not just clones?
I believe that flora and fauna do evolve (micro-evolution). However,
I don't believe there is evidence to prove that macro-evolution takes
place. For example, I don't believe that a dog will evolve into a cat
or that a flower will evolve into a tree. Another example: I believe
that a red rose could evolve into a yellow rose (micro-evolution).
They believe that God
created the world and life. Hundreds of people that have Ph.D degrees
agree with me.
Ph.D's in different sciences or fields of study.
Just because you are part to the establishment does not
mean that you are right. Eventually, the science establishment did accept
Galileo and Copernicus. I doubt that the current science establishment
will ever realize that they are wrong.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
--
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 |
07 Nov 2005 05:53:38 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:29:00 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <8iqsm11nalack13l1hrq56tf8oru9c1q7d@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:22:12 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <c8dsm1lkn5gtdrm0s7km5v9nniq26sib4j@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:07:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0511052207210001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <v95rm15j8keh4vvf0t2r4m9bo4l0m6ibnc@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:44:11 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
When I was in high school, the teachers spent more time teaching
from the
textbooks than from prepared lectures.
This, in and of itself, probably explains to a significant degree the
source of your ignorance.
That's funny. I only wish my parents were rich enough to send me to a
Christian school where I could have had the freedom to learn about
creation science and evolution.
Creation Science is intentional ignorance. There is absolutely no
physical evidence to support this doctrine.
Instead, the high school biology
teacher tried to brainwash us by teaching us evolution. The brain-
washing worked well on most of the people in this newsgroup. I guess
that my bad teachers were not very good brainwashers.
It's about facts. You refuse to accept them and then insult all who do
accept the facts. Why?
For the same reasons that Galileo and Copernicus done the same thing. They
were of the opinion that they were right despite the fact that all of the
other scientists (and establishment) told them they were wrong.
They were observers who reported what they *actually* saw. Buy
yourself a telescope and you will be able to see what they saw as
well.
Evolution
is the modern day "establishment" or "big brother". It does not matter to
me that the majority of science professors disagree with me. The vast
majority of the people in America agree with me.
Have they observed what 'evolutionists' observed or just accepted
what they have been told without question? How many geological
field trips have you been on to study fossils in situ? How many has
the average USA'er. How many understand the evolutionary mrchanism
that we all possess and what makes us unique individuals. If flora
and fauna do not evolve, why do they have such evolutionary
mechanisms. Why are we not just clones?
I believe that flora and fauna do evolve (micro-evolution).
You do?
If you were to go and examine the fossil record for yourself and
other examples of evolution you would know if occurs not merely
believe it occurs.
However,
I don't believe there is evidence to prove that macro-evolution takes
place. For example, I don't believe that a dog will evolve into a cat
or that a flower will evolve into a tree. Another example: I believe
that a red rose could evolve into a yellow rose (micro-evolution).
As I have indicated earlier dogs cannot evolve into cats since they
are not on the same branch but they did both follow the same
evolutionary path at one time up to the point of branching. They
are both invertebrates, four legs, have brains, two eyes, are
carnivores. They have much in common.
Trees have flowers. Your ignorance is such that you do not
even know that flowers are but part of a plant and all plants
have them (to greater or lesser degrees - the Cauliflower is
practically all flower for example)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 11:02:40 AM |
|
|
In article <jnfum1hn755u5764a3s0v0o09u5tgemcov@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:29:00 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <8iqsm11nalack13l1hrq56tf8oru9c1q7d@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:22:12 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <c8dsm1lkn5gtdrm0s7km5v9nniq26sib4j@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:07:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0511052207210001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <v95rm15j8keh4vvf0t2r4m9bo4l0m6ibnc@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:44:11 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
When I was in high school, the teachers spent more time teaching
from the
textbooks than from prepared lectures.
This, in and of itself, probably explains to a significant degree the
source of your ignorance.
That's funny. I only wish my parents were rich enough to send me to a
Christian school where I could have had the freedom to learn about
creation science and evolution.
Creation Science is intentional ignorance. There is absolutely no
physical evidence to support this doctrine.
Instead, the high school biology
teacher tried to brainwash us by teaching us evolution. The brain-
washing worked well on most of the people in this newsgroup. I guess
that my bad teachers were not very good brainwashers.
It's about facts. You refuse to accept them and then insult all who do
accept the facts. Why?
For the same reasons that Galileo and Copernicus done the same thing. They
were of the opinion that they were right despite the fact that all of the
other scientists (and establishment) told them they were wrong.
They were observers who reported what they *actually* saw. Buy
yourself a telescope and you will be able to see what they saw as
well.
Evolution
is the modern day "establishment" or "big brother". It does not matter to
me that the majority of science professors disagree with me. The vast
majority of the people in America agree with me.
Have they observed what 'evolutionists' observed or just accepted
what they have been told without question? How many geological
field trips have you been on to study fossils in situ? How many has
the average USA'er. How many understand the evolutionary mrchanism
that we all possess and what makes us unique individuals. If flora
and fauna do not evolve, why do they have such evolutionary
mechanisms. Why are we not just clones?
I believe that flora and fauna do evolve (micro-evolution).
You do?
If you were to go and examine the fossil record for yourself and
other examples of evolution you would know if occurs not merely
believe it occurs.
However,
I don't believe there is evidence to prove that macro-evolution takes
place. For example, I don't believe that a dog will evolve into a cat
or that a flower will evolve into a tree. Another example: I believe
that a red rose could evolve into a yellow rose (micro-evolution).
As I have indicated earlier dogs cannot evolve into cats since they
are not on the same branch but they did both follow the same
evolutionary path at one time up to the point of branching. They
are both invertebrates, four legs, have brains, two eyes, are
carnivores. They have much in common.
Trees have flowers. Your ignorance is such that you do not
even know that flowers are but part of a plant and all plants
have them (to greater or lesser degrees - the Cauliflower is
practically all flower for example)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Your ignorance is that you don't know the difference between a Rose and an
Oak tree. Just because an Apple tree might have blossoms that look like
flowers does not mean that you could not tell the difference between a
apple tree and a red rose. Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
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: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 12:00:25 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0711050902400001@pm1-broad-124.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
Oh, the irony.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 12:29:12 PM |
|
|
In article <3t9j1qFrh6knU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0711050902400001@pm1-broad-124.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
Oh, the irony.
great trick--you failed to include the entire post.
--
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 |
07 Nov 2005 03:09:39 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0711051029130001@pm1-broad-124.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <3t9j1qFrh6knU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0711050902400001@pm1-broad-124.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
snip
Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
Oh, the irony.
great trick--you failed to include the entire post.
It wasn't necessary.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 03:25:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:02:40 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <jnfum1hn755u5764a3s0v0o09u5tgemcov@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:29:00 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <8iqsm11nalack13l1hrq56tf8oru9c1q7d@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:22:12 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <c8dsm1lkn5gtdrm0s7km5v9nniq26sib4j@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:07:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0511052207210001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <v95rm15j8keh4vvf0t2r4m9bo4l0m6ibnc@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:44:11 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
When I was in high school, the teachers spent more time teaching
from the
textbooks than from prepared lectures.
This, in and of itself, probably explains to a significant degree the
source of your ignorance.
That's funny. I only wish my parents were rich enough to send me to a
Christian school where I could have had the freedom to learn about
creation science and evolution.
Creation Science is intentional ignorance. There is absolutely no
physical evidence to support this doctrine.
Instead, the high school biology
teacher tried to brainwash us by teaching us evolution. The brain-
washing worked well on most of the people in this newsgroup. I guess
that my bad teachers were not very good brainwashers.
It's about facts. You refuse to accept them and then insult all who do
accept the facts. Why?
For the same reasons that Galileo and Copernicus done the same thing. They
were of the opinion that they were right despite the fact that all of the
other scientists (and establishment) told them they were wrong.
They were observers who reported what they *actually* saw. Buy
yourself a telescope and you will be able to see what they saw as
well.
Evolution
is the modern day "establishment" or "big brother". It does not matter to
me that the majority of science professors disagree with me. The vast
majority of the people in America agree with me.
Have they observed what 'evolutionists' observed or just accepted
what they have been told without question? How many geological
field trips have you been on to study fossils in situ? How many has
the average USA'er. How many understand the evolutionary mrchanism
that we all possess and what makes us unique individuals. If flora
and fauna do not evolve, why do they have such evolutionary
mechanisms. Why are we not just clones?
I believe that flora and fauna do evolve (micro-evolution).
You do?
If you were to go and examine the fossil record for yourself and
other examples of evolution you would know if occurs not merely
believe it occurs.
However,
I don't believe there is evidence to prove that macro-evolution takes
place. For example, I don't believe that a dog will evolve into a cat
or that a flower will evolve into a tree. Another example: I believe
that a red rose could evolve into a yellow rose (micro-evolution).
As I have indicated earlier dogs cannot evolve into cats since they
are not on the same branch but they did both follow the same
evolutionary path at one time up to the point of branching. They
are both invertebrates, four legs, have brains, two eyes, are
carnivores. They have much in common.
Trees have flowers. Your ignorance is such that you do not
even know that flowers are but part of a plant and all plants
have them (to greater or lesser degrees - the Cauliflower is
practically all flower for example)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Your ignorance is that you don't know the difference between a Rose and an
Oak tree. Just because an Apple tree might have blossoms that look like
flowers does not mean that you could not tell the difference between a
apple tree and a red rose.
The mind boggles!
From Encyclopedia Brittannica:
blossom
1 a : the flower of a seed plant; also : the mass of such flowers on a
single plant b : the state of bearing flowers
2 : a peak period or stage of development
Flower:
1 a : blossom, inflorescence b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher
plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened
axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant
differentiated intoa calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels c : a plant
cultivated for its blossoms
Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
Jason
Oak trees produce flowers as does Apple trees and all other seed
producing plants such as roses.
As it happens my garden has almost side by side roses*, Laburnums
(a type of tree) and raspberry plants. All produce flowers which the
bees pollinate allowing the plants to set seeds some within fruit
or nuts. Thats how most (if not all?) plants reproduce.
*all white roses :-)
see www.leswell.freeuk.com
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 03:50:45 PM |
|
|
In article <lofvm1lifjk5rdj5pj15it5kmt9bm67efh@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:02:40 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <jnfum1hn755u5764a3s0v0o09u5tgemcov@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:29:00 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <8iqsm11nalack13l1hrq56tf8oru9c1q7d@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:22:12 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <c8dsm1lkn5gtdrm0s7km5v9nniq26sib4j@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:07:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0511052207210001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <v95rm15j8keh4vvf0t2r4m9bo4l0m6ibnc@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:44:11 -0800, (Jason)
wrote:
When I was in high school, the teachers spent more time teaching
from the
textbooks than from prepared lectures.
This, in and of itself, probably explains to a significant
degree the
source of your ignorance.
That's funny. I only wish my parents were rich enough to send
me to a
Christian school where I could have had the freedom to learn about
creation science and evolution.
Creation Science is intentional ignorance. There is absolutely no
physical evidence to support this doctrine.
Instead, the high school biology
teacher tried to brainwash us by teaching us evolution. The brain-
washing worked well on most of the people in this newsgroup. I guess
that my bad teachers were not very good brainwashers.
It's about facts. You refuse to accept them and then insult all
who do
accept the facts. Why?
For the same reasons that Galileo and Copernicus done the same
thing. They
were of the opinion that they were right despite the fact that
all of the
other scientists (and establishment) told them they were wrong.
They were observers who reported what they *actually* saw. Buy
yourself a telescope and you will be able to see what they saw as
well.
Evolution
is the modern day "establishment" or "big brother". It does not
matter to
me that the majority of science professors disagree with me. The vast
majority of the people in America agree with me.
Have they observed what 'evolutionists' observed or just accepted
what they have been told without question? How many geological
field trips have you been on to study fossils in situ? How many has
the average USA'er. How many understand the evolutionary mrchanism
that we all possess and what makes us unique individuals. If flora
and fauna do not evolve, why do they have such evolutionary
mechanisms. Why are we not just clones?
I believe that flora and fauna do evolve (micro-evolution).
You do?
If you were to go and examine the fossil record for yourself and
other examples of evolution you would know if occurs not merely
believe it occurs.
However,
I don't believe there is evidence to prove that macro-evolution takes
place. For example, I don't believe that a dog will evolve into a cat
or that a flower will evolve into a tree. Another example: I believe
that a red rose could evolve into a yellow rose (micro-evolution).
As I have indicated earlier dogs cannot evolve into cats since they
are not on the same branch but they did both follow the same
evolutionary path at one time up to the point of branching. They
are both invertebrates, four legs, have brains, two eyes, are
carnivores. They have much in common.
Trees have flowers. Your ignorance is such that you do not
even know that flowers are but part of a plant and all plants
have them (to greater or lesser degrees - the Cauliflower is
practically all flower for example)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Your ignorance is that you don't know the difference between a Rose and an
Oak tree. Just because an Apple tree might have blossoms that look like
flowers does not mean that you could not tell the difference between a
apple tree and a red rose.
The mind boggles!
From Encyclopedia Brittannica:
blossom
1 a : the flower of a seed plant; also : the mass of such flowers on a
single plant b : the state of bearing flowers
2 : a peak period or stage of development
Flower:
1 a : blossom, inflorescence b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher
plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened
axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant
differentiated intoa calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels c : a plant
cultivated for its blossoms
Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
Jason
Oak trees produce flowers as does Apple trees and all other seed
producing plants such as roses.
As it happens my garden has almost side by side roses*, Laburnums
(a type of tree) and raspberry plants. All produce flowers which the
bees pollinate allowing the plants to set seeds some within fruit
or nuts. Thats how most (if not all?) plants reproduce.
*all white roses :-)
see www.leswell.freeuk.com
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Walk out your door and look for a large oak tree or pine tree. You should
carry a red rose with you as you touch the large oak tree or pine tree.
The red thing in your hand is a flower. The tall thing that you are
touching is a tree. Please don't ask me again to tell you the difference
since you now know the difference.
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 |
07 Nov 2005 05:21:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:50:45 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <lofvm1lifjk5rdj5pj15it5kmt9bm67efh@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:02:40 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <jnfum1hn755u5764a3s0v0o09u5tgemcov@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:29:00 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <8iqsm11nalack13l1hrq56tf8oru9c1q7d@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:22:12 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <c8dsm1lkn5gtdrm0s7km5v9nniq26sib4j@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:07:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0511052207210001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <v95rm15j8keh4vvf0t2r4m9bo4l0m6ibnc@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:44:11 -0800, (Jason)
wrote:
When I was in high school, the teachers spent more time teaching
from the
textbooks than from prepared lectures.
This, in and of itself, probably explains to a significant
degree the
source of your ignorance.
That's funny. I only wish my parents were rich enough to send
me to a
Christian school where I could have had the freedom to learn about
creation science and evolution.
Creation Science is intentional ignorance. There is absolutely no
physical evidence to support this doctrine.
Instead, the high school biology
teacher tried to brainwash us by teaching us evolution. The brain-
washing worked well on most of the people in this newsgroup. I guess
that my bad teachers were not very good brainwashers.
It's about facts. You refuse to accept them and then insult all
who do
accept the facts. Why?
For the same reasons that Galileo and Copernicus done the same
thing. They
were of the opinion that they were right despite the fact that
all of the
other scientists (and establishment) told them they were wrong.
They were observers who reported what they *actually* saw. Buy
yourself a telescope and you will be able to see what they saw as
well.
Evolution
is the modern day "establishment" or "big brother". It does not
matter to
me that the majority of science professors disagree with me. The vast
majority of the people in America agree with me.
Have they observed what 'evolutionists' observed or just accepted
what they have been told without question? How many geological
field trips have you been on to study fossils in situ? How many has
the average USA'er. How many understand the evolutionary mrchanism
that we all possess and what makes us unique individuals. If flora
and fauna do not evolve, why do they have such evolutionary
mechanisms. Why are we not just clones?
I believe that flora and fauna do evolve (micro-evolution).
You do?
If you were to go and examine the fossil record for yourself and
other examples of evolution you would know if occurs not merely
believe it occurs.
However,
I don't believe there is evidence to prove that macro-evolution takes
place. For example, I don't believe that a dog will evolve into a cat
or that a flower will evolve into a tree. Another example: I believe
that a red rose could evolve into a yellow rose (micro-evolution).
As I have indicated earlier dogs cannot evolve into cats since they
are not on the same branch but they did both follow the same
evolutionary path at one time up to the point of branching. They
are both invertebrates, four legs, have brains, two eyes, are
carnivores. They have much in common.
Trees have flowers. Your ignorance is such that you do not
even know that flowers are but part of a plant and all plants
have them (to greater or lesser degrees - the Cauliflower is
practically all flower for example)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Your ignorance is that you don't know the difference between a Rose and an
Oak tree. Just because an Apple tree might have blossoms that look like
flowers does not mean that you could not tell the difference between a
apple tree and a red rose.
The mind boggles!
From Encyclopedia Brittannica:
blossom
1 a : the flower of a seed plant; also : the mass of such flowers on a
single plant b : the state of bearing flowers
2 : a peak period or stage of development
Flower:
1 a : blossom, inflorescence b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher
plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened
axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant
differentiated intoa calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels c : a plant
cultivated for its blossoms
Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
Jason
Oak trees produce flowers as does Apple trees and all other seed
producing plants such as roses.
As it happens my garden has almost side by side roses*, Laburnums
(a type of tree) and raspberry plants. All produce flowers which the
bees pollinate allowing the plants to set seeds some within fruit
or nuts. Thats how most (if not all?) plants reproduce.
*all white roses :-)
see www.leswell.freeuk.com
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Walk out your door and look for a large oak tree or pine tree. You should
carry a red rose with you as you touch the large oak tree or pine tree.
The red thing in your hand is a flower.
No it is a rose. There are no flowers currently on my rose bushes
since it is autumn. (well there just the odd flower left but soon the
bushes will be barren leaving just the woody stems to prune back.)
Who mentioned pine trees? You were comparing an Oak tree, which
produces flowers, with a rose bush which also produces flowers, since
they are both angiosperms.
The tall thing that you are
touching is a tree.
Even if it is just a sapling and not yet knee high to a standard
Rose tree? (well both of mine have woody stems with a main
trunk and branches and look like a tree with leaves and flowers
or blossoms in spring - albeit a small tree since it is only about 6'
tall) whereas my Laburnums are about 14' now.
Please don't ask me again to tell you the difference
since you now know the difference.
I know the difference but do you know the similarities?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 08:14:54 PM |
|
|
In article <ainvm19ku0nnb236c10vin609k8457hc32@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:50:45 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <lofvm1lifjk5rdj5pj15it5kmt9bm67efh@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:02:40 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <jnfum1hn755u5764a3s0v0o09u5tgemcov@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:29:00 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <8iqsm11nalack13l1hrq56tf8oru9c1q7d@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:22:12 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <c8dsm1lkn5gtdrm0s7km5v9nniq26sib4j@4ax.com>, David
Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:07:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0511052207210001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <v95rm15j8keh4vvf0t2r4m9bo4l0m6ibnc@4ax.com>,
Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:44:11 -0800, (Jason)
wrote:
When I was in high school, the teachers spent more time
teaching
from the
textbooks than from prepared lectures.
This, in and of itself, probably explains to a significant
degree the
source of your ignorance.
That's funny. I only wish my parents were rich enough to send
me to a
Christian school where I could have had the freedom to
learn about
creation science and evolution.
Creation Science is intentional ignorance. There is absolutely no
physical evidence to support this doctrine.
Instead, the high school biology
teacher tried to brainwash us by teaching us evolution. The
brain-
washing worked well on most of the people in this
newsgroup. I guess
that my bad teachers were not very good brainwashers.
It's about facts. You refuse to accept them and then insult all
who do
accept the facts. Why?
For the same reasons that Galileo and Copernicus done the same
thing. They
were of the opinion that they were right despite the fact that
all of the
other scientists (and establishment) told them they were wrong.
They were observers who reported what they *actually* saw. Buy
yourself a telescope and you will be able to see what they saw as
well.
Evolution
is the modern day "establishment" or "big brother". It does not
matter to
me that the majority of science professors disagree with me.
The vast
majority of the people in America agree with me.
Have they observed what 'evolutionists' observed or just accepted
what they have been told without question? How many geological
field trips have you been on to study fossils in situ? How many has
the average USA'er. How many understand the evolutionary mrchanism
that we all possess and what makes us unique individuals. If flora
and fauna do not evolve, why do they have such evolutionary
mechanisms. Why are we not just clones?
I believe that flora and fauna do evolve (micro-evolution).
You do?
If you were to go and examine the fossil record for yourself and
other examples of evolution you would know if occurs not merely
believe it occurs.
However,
I don't believe there is evidence to prove that macro-evolution takes
place. For example, I don't believe that a dog will evolve into a cat
or that a flower will evolve into a tree. Another example: I believe
that a red rose could evolve into a yellow rose (micro-evolution).
As I have indicated earlier dogs cannot evolve into cats since they
are not on the same branch but they did both follow the same
evolutionary path at one time up to the point of branching. They
are both invertebrates, four legs, have brains, two eyes, are
carnivores. They have much in common.
Trees have flowers. Your ignorance is such that you do not
even know that flowers are but part of a plant and all plants
have them (to greater or lesser degrees - the Cauliflower is
practically all flower for example)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Your ignorance is that you don't know the difference between a Rose and an
Oak tree. Just because an Apple tree might have blossoms that look like
flowers does not mean that you could not tell the difference between a
apple tree and a red rose.
The mind boggles!
From Encyclopedia Brittannica:
blossom
1 a : the flower of a seed plant; also : the mass of such flowers on a
single plant b : the state of bearing flowers
2 : a peak period or stage of development
Flower:
1 a : blossom, inflorescence b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher
plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened
axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant
differentiated intoa calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels c : a plant
cultivated for its blossoms
Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
Jason
Oak trees produce flowers as does Apple trees and all other seed
producing plants such as roses.
As it happens my garden has almost side by side roses*, Laburnums
(a type of tree) and raspberry plants. All produce flowers which the
bees pollinate allowing the plants to set seeds some within fruit
or nuts. Thats how most (if not all?) plants reproduce.
*all white roses :-)
see www.leswell.freeuk.com
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Walk out your door and look for a large oak tree or pine tree. You should
carry a red rose with you as you touch the large oak tree or pine tree.
The red thing in your hand is a flower.
No it is a rose. There are no flowers currently on my rose bushes
since it is autumn. (well there just the odd flower left but soon the
bushes will be barren leaving just the woody stems to prune back.)
Who mentioned pine trees? You were comparing an Oak tree, which
produces flowers, with a rose bush which also produces flowers, since
they are both angiosperms.
The tall thing that you are
touching is a tree.
Even if it is just a sapling and not yet knee high to a standard
Rose tree? (well both of mine have woody stems with a main
trunk and branches and look like a tree with leaves and flowers
or blossoms in spring - albeit a small tree since it is only about 6'
tall) whereas my Laburnums are about 14' now.
Please don't ask me again to tell you the difference
since you now know the difference.
I know the difference but do you know the similarities?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
I hope that you know that I was just joking. I hope that I did not offend you.
I have a question for you:
According to classical evolution, how many "common ancestors" are there?
I only recall learning about several of them while attending the evolution
class. I wish that I still owned my biology textbook since it had all of
the species, etc. listed in the back of the book. I did not take any
course in
botany while in college so you have me at a disadvantage.
Jason
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 |
08 Nov 2005 03:46:18 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:14:54 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <ainvm19ku0nnb236c10vin609k8457hc32@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:50:45 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <lofvm1lifjk5rdj5pj15it5kmt9bm67efh@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:02:40 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <jnfum1hn755u5764a3s0v0o09u5tgemcov@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:29:00 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <8iqsm11nalack13l1hrq56tf8oru9c1q7d@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:22:12 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <c8dsm1lkn5gtdrm0s7km5v9nniq26sib4j@4ax.com>, David
Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:07:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0511052207210001@pm4-broad-31.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <v95rm15j8keh4vvf0t2r4m9bo4l0m6ibnc@4ax.com>,
Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:44:11 -0800, (Jason)
wrote:
When I was in high school, the teachers spent more time
teaching
from the
textbooks than from prepared lectures.
This, in and of itself, probably explains to a significant
degree the
source of your ignorance.
That's funny. I only wish my parents were rich enough to send
me to a
Christian school where I could have had the freedom to
learn about
creation science and evolution.
Creation Science is intentional ignorance. There is absolutely no
physical evidence to support this doctrine.
Instead, the high school biology
teacher tried to brainwash us by teaching us evolution. The
brain-
washing worked well on most of the people in this
newsgroup. I guess
that my bad teachers were not very good brainwashers.
It's about facts. You refuse to accept them and then insult all
who do
accept the facts. Why?
For the same reasons that Galileo and Copernicus done the same
thing. They
were of the opinion that they were right despite the fact that
all of the
other scientists (and establishment) told them they were wrong.
They were observers who reported what they *actually* saw. Buy
yourself a telescope and you will be able to see what they saw as
well.
Evolution
is the modern day "establishment" or "big brother". It does not
matter to
me that the majority of science professors disagree with me.
The vast
majority of the people in America agree with me.
Have they observed what 'evolutionists' observed or just accepted
what they have been told without question? How many geological
field trips have you been on to study fossils in situ? How many has
the average USA'er. How many understand the evolutionary mrchanism
that we all possess and what makes us unique individuals. If flora
and fauna do not evolve, why do they have such evolutionary
mechanisms. Why are we not just clones?
I believe that flora and fauna do evolve (micro-evolution).
You do?
If you were to go and examine the fossil record for yourself and
other examples of evolution you would know if occurs not merely
believe it occurs.
However,
I don't believe there is evidence to prove that macro-evolution takes
place. For example, I don't believe that a dog will evolve into a cat
or that a flower will evolve into a tree. Another example: I believe
that a red rose could evolve into a yellow rose (micro-evolution).
As I have indicated earlier dogs cannot evolve into cats since they
are not on the same branch but they did both follow the same
evolutionary path at one time up to the point of branching. They
are both invertebrates, four legs, have brains, two eyes, are
carnivores. They have much in common.
Trees have flowers. Your ignorance is such that you do not
even know that flowers are but part of a plant and all plants
have them (to greater or lesser degrees - the Cauliflower is
practically all flower for example)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Your ignorance is that you don't know the difference between a Rose and an
Oak tree. Just because an Apple tree might have blossoms that look like
flowers does not mean that you could not tell the difference between a
apple tree and a red rose.
The mind boggles!
From Encyclopedia Brittannica:
blossom
1 a : the flower of a seed plant; also : the mass of such flowers on a
single plant b : the state of bearing flowers
2 : a peak period or stage of development
Flower:
1 a : blossom, inflorescence b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher
plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened
axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant
differentiated intoa calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels c : a plant
cultivated for its blossoms
Let's get real. Please get out of the college
class room and talk to some people in the real world.
Jason
Oak trees produce flowers as does Apple trees and all other seed
producing plants such as roses.
As it happens my garden has almost side by side roses*, Laburnums
(a type of tree) and raspberry plants. All produce flowers which the
bees pollinate allowing the plants to set seeds some within fruit
or nuts. Thats how most (if not all?) plants reproduce.
*all white roses :-)
see www.leswell.freeuk.com
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Walk out your door and look for a large oak tree or pine tree. You should
carry a red rose with you as you touch the large oak tree or pine tree.
The red thing in your hand is a flower.
No it is a rose. There are no flowers currently on my rose bushes
since it is autumn. (well there just the odd flower left but soon the
bushes will be barren leaving just the woody stems to prune back.)
Who mentioned pine trees? You were comparing an Oak tree, which
produces flowers, with a rose bush which also produces flowers, since
they are both angiosperms.
The tall thing that you are
touching is a tree.
Even if it is just a sapling and not yet knee high to a standard
Rose tree? (well both of mine have woody stems with a main
trunk and branches and look like a tree with leaves and flowers
or blossoms in spring - albeit a small tree since it is only about 6'
tall) whereas my Laburnums are about 14' now.
Please don't ask me again to tell you the difference
since you now know the difference.
I know the difference but do you know the similarities?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
I hope that you know that I was just joking. I hope that I did not offend you.
I have a question for you:
Everything you have said thus far is a joke. Leastways it is hard to
distinquish what you said about flowers and Oaks, from what you wrote
about cats and dogs, men and apes, macro and micro evolution, your
view of what theory is, and that things were intelligently designed,
If you read another thread you will see that even the Pope accepts
evolution as compatable with the Bible.
According to classical evolution, how many "common ancestors" are there?
No idea. Each family will of species has a common ancester and so on
up the classification levels to the first organism according to the
model. (Leastways that was the model when I read about it 30 odd years
ago.)
I only recall learning about several of them while attending the evolution
class. I wish that I still owned my biology textbook since it had all of
the species, etc. listed in the back of the book. I did not take any
course in
botany while in college so you have me at a disadvantage.
Neither did I. Nor did I do Zoology but I think I have at least the
basics.
The "Tree of life" is not to be taken as, "This is how it was",
believe it, it is more a model on the basis of, "What we think it
might have been", based on what little we know and the theory.
It sets the framework for further investigation and shows what
to look for. The more we discover the better they can make
the model and have confience in its accuracy.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 03:30:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:14:54 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-0711051814540001@pm4-broad-5.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[snip]
I hope that you know that I was just joking. I hope that I did not offend you.
You followed up a serious claim with a joke. I don't mind jokes
(though I suggest a smiley, it is hard to distinguish creationism from
jokes. And I am not joking.) but I hope you do understand that you
simply don't know enough about plants to make a comment. A cherry tree
is more similar to a rose than a cherry tree is to a pine tree. That
they don't look that way to you simply shows you don't look at enough.
I have a question for you:
According to classical evolution, how many "common ancestors" are there?
The question is not well formed, but it suggests you know far less
about this topic than you should. Before I answer, I have to ask you
how you can express disagreement with the science when you know so
little? Did you really take a college biology course?
The simplest answer is that all life on Earth shares a single common
ancestral population. Not single ancestor. Life today is a population
issue and likely life has always been a population issue. That is,
there was not a single first living thing, rather there were lots of
almost life things and as they changed we got lots of life things.
One of the best ways to think of this it to think of a tree. Take any
two branch tips and follow them down, you get a common ancestral
branch. If you pick twigs far enough apart they join together at the
trunk, the common ancestral population. Now that trunk, itself, has
lots of roots. And it may be that different parts of that common
population developed separately.
I only recall learning about several of them while attending the evolution
class. I wish that I still owned my biology textbook since it had all of
the species, etc. listed in the back of the book. I did not take any
course in botany while in college so you have me at a disadvantage.
I did not have all of the species listed, there are tens of thousands
of animal species and more of plants and bacteria. It probably had
some representative samples.
Let me explain common ancestry again by explaining one of the several
lines of evidence for it. Let us look at two humans and compare them
to each other and to some other organisms. We will look "deeply" into
the organisms, look how they develop, how they work, the structure,
etc. We will compare as many of these features as we can. When we are
done we will find that the humans are more similar to each other than
either human is to any other organisms.* Now lets add a chimp into the
mix.** We will find that the humans are more similar to the chimp than
either humans or chimps are to any other organisms. Lets call this
group of similar organisms apes. Now compare a monkey, a capuchin or
baboon lets say. We will find that the monkey and the apes are more
similar to each other than they are to any other organism. We can keep
on doing this and we will find the same pattern though primates and
mammals and tetrapods and so on. More importantly, we can start with
any organism, a chicken, a cherry tree, etc. and we find the same
pattern. We call this pattern a tree-like nested hierarchy. Let me
draw this with some ASCII-art (use a fixed font).
A B C D E F G
\/ \/ \/ /
\ / \/
\ / /
\/ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
What this diagram says is that just by comparing the organism, the
morphology, we find that A and B are more similar than they are to
anything else. C and D are more similar than they are to anything
else, E and F are more similar than they are to anything else. And AB
are more similar to CD than either are to anything else, EF is more
similar to G than to anything else. We can make a comparison tree for
all life on Earth and we find this quite specific pattern.
Now let me get more specific here. We might find that AB are the only
organisms that have hair, CD the only ones with scales, ABCD the only
ones with a particular kind of egg and so on. We can trace specific
traits along this tree.
Now look at that tree and tell me if it does not suggest common
descent to you? If not, let me draw this again with some additions.
A B C D E F G
\/ \/ \ /
1\ /2 3\/
\ / /4
\/5 /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
6
We can imagine an organism, call it 1, that has the common features of
A and B, but none of the distinct features of C and D. Similarly we
can imagine an organism 2 that has the common features of C and D and
none of the distinct features of A and B. We can then do this for all
of the branching points. Since this is science, we can do much more
than imagine. If this comparison pattern does tell us about the
history of the species, then the "imagined" features of 1, 2, 3, etc.
are actually the predicted features of the various common ancestors.
This pattern allows us to make predictions about the history of life
on Earth, predictions we can test by looking at the fossil record. Not
exactly remarkably scientists have looked and they have overwhelmingly
found the organisms that fit. That is, we may not have 1-6, we may
only have 2, 4, and 6, but those organisms are found in right order in
time and have the right features. So there is the other answer to your
question, 1 is the common ancestor of A and B, 2 is the common
ancestor of C and D, and so on.
Now I have one more very important point to make. We can make the same
comparisons when we look at designed objects. We can compare the
features and look for patterns of similarity. Unfortunately for ID
advocates we do *not* find the same pattern we find in biology.
Designed objects do *not* look like this. Instead we find a web.
Things are similar to a wide variety of other things. Lets take a few
concrete examples. A car today is similar to other cars, sure. But it
is also similar to a computer (having computer chips inside) and to an
airplane. A modern steel boat is similar in some ways to a wooden boat
and in some ways to a railroad train and in some ways to an airplane.
And so on. If we say the same pattern in life as we do in designed
objects then we would expect bats to have bird wings (or both to have
ptetradon wings), we would expect whales to have gills, etc.
*It is kind of important to point out that I *can't* produce the same
kind of tree *inside* a group of humans. That is, human traits do not
fall out into a tree. This is because inside a species there is lots
of cross-breeding. If we had genetically distinct races then we might
find the beginnings of a tree-pattern. But we don't.
**My presentation is, of course, very simplified. For example, humans
and both species of chimps and gorillas are so close that it is a bit
difficult to figure out which branched off first. Humans and chimps
are probably a bit closer, but gorillas are not that separate.
--
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 |
08 Nov 2005 05:10:41 PM |
|
|
In article <7442n15sk973tp7icbnld7thcj7q4utsge@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:14:54 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-0711051814540001@pm4-broad-5.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[snip]
I hope that you know that I was just joking. I hope that I did not
offend you.
You followed up a serious claim with a joke. I don't mind jokes
(though I suggest a smiley, it is hard to distinguish creationism from
jokes. And I am not joking.) but I hope you do understand that you
simply don't know enough about plants to make a comment. A cherry tree
is more similar to a rose than a cherry tree is to a pine tree. That
they don't look that way to you simply shows you don't look at enough.
I have a question for you:
According to classical evolution, how many "common ancestors" are there?
The question is not well formed, but it suggests you know far less
about this topic than you should. Before I answer, I have to ask you
how you can express disagreement with the science when you know so
little? Did you really take a college biology course?
The simplest answer is that all life on Earth shares a single common
ancestral population. Not single ancestor. Life today is a population
issue and likely life has always been a population issue. That is,
there was not a single first living thing, rather there were lots of
almost life things and as they changed we got lots of life things.
One of the best ways to think of this it to think of a tree. Take any
two branch tips and follow them down, you get a common ancestral
branch. If you pick twigs far enough apart they join together at the
trunk, the common ancestral population. Now that trunk, itself, has
lots of roots. And it may be that different parts of that common
population developed separately.
I only recall learning about several of them while attending the evolution
class. I wish that I still owned my biology textbook since it had all of
the species, etc. listed in the back of the book. I did not take any
course in botany while in college so you have me at a disadvantage.
I did not have all of the species listed, there are tens of thousands
of animal species and more of plants and bacteria. It probably had
some representative samples.
Let me explain common ancestry again by explaining one of the several
lines of evidence for it. Let us look at two humans and compare them
to each other and to some other organisms. We will look "deeply" into
the organisms, look how they develop, how they work, the structure,
etc. We will compare as many of these features as we can. When we are
done we will find that the humans are more similar to each other than
either human is to any other organisms.* Now lets add a chimp into the
mix.** We will find that the humans are more similar to the chimp than
either humans or chimps are to any other organisms. Lets call this
group of similar organisms apes. Now compare a monkey, a capuchin or
baboon lets say. We will find that the monkey and the apes are more
similar to each other than they are to any other organism. We can keep
on doing this and we will find the same pattern though primates and
mammals and tetrapods and so on. More importantly, we can start with
any organism, a chicken, a cherry tree, etc. and we find the same
pattern. We call this pattern a tree-like nested hierarchy. Let me
draw this with some ASCII-art (use a fixed font).
A B C D E F G
\/ \/ \/ /
\ / \/
\ / /
\/ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
What this diagram says is that just by comparing the organism, the
morphology, we find that A and B are more similar than they are to
anything else. C and D are more similar than they are to anything
else, E and F are more similar than they are to anything else. And AB
are more similar to CD than either are to anything else, EF is more
similar to G than to anything else. We can make a comparison tree for
all life on Earth and we find this quite specific pattern.
Now let me get more specific here. We might find that AB are the only
organisms that have hair, CD the only ones with scales, ABCD the only
ones with a particular kind of egg and so on. We can trace specific
traits along this tree.
Now look at that tree and tell me if it does not suggest common
descent to you? If not, let me draw this again with some additions.
A B C D E F G
\/ \/ \ /
1\ /2 3\/
\ / /4
\/5 /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
6
We can imagine an organism, call it 1, that has the common features of
A and B, but none of the distinct features of C and D. Similarly we
can imagine an organism 2 that has the common features of C and D and
none of the distinct features of A and B. We can then do this for all
of the branching points. Since this is science, we can do much more
than imagine. If this comparison pattern does tell us about the
history of the species, then the "imagined" features of 1, 2, 3, etc.
are actually the predicted features of the various common ancestors.
This pattern allows us to make predictions about the history of life
on Earth, predictions we can test by looking at the fossil record. Not
exactly remarkably scientists have looked and they have overwhelmingly
found the organisms that fit. That is, we may not have 1-6, we may
only have 2, 4, and 6, but those organisms are found in right order in
time and have the right features. So there is the other answer to your
question, 1 is the common ancestor of A and B, 2 is the common
ancestor of C and D, and so on.
Now I have one more very important point to make. We can make the same
comparisons when we look at designed objects. We can compare the
features and look for patterns of similarity. Unfortunately for ID
advocates we do *not* find the same pattern we find in biology.
Designed objects do *not* look like this. Instead we find a web.
Things are similar to a wide variety of other things. Lets take a few
concrete examples. A car today is similar to other cars, sure. But it
is also similar to a computer (having computer chips inside) and to an
airplane. A modern steel boat is similar in some ways to a wooden boat
and in some ways to a railroad train and in some ways to an airplane.
And so on. If we say the same pattern in life as we do in designed
objects then we would expect bats to have bird wings (or both to have
ptetradon wings), we would expect whales to have gills, etc.
*It is kind of important to point out that I *can't* produce the same
kind of tree *inside* a group of humans. That is, human traits do not
fall out into a tree. This is because inside a species there is lots
of cross-breeding. If we had genetically distinct races then we might
find the beginnings of a tree-pattern. But we don't.
**My presentation is, of course, very simplified. For example, humans
and both species of chimps and gorillas are so close that it is a bit
difficult to figure out which branched off first. Humans and chimps
are probably a bit closer, but gorillas are not that separate.
Matt,
Thanks for your interesting post. Thanks also for taking the time needed
to make the diagram--great work. We learned lots of that information in
the evolution class and discussed it in the special seminar. I don't
remember all of the details as well as you remembered those details.
I don't agree with classical evolution theory. I should also note that
all evolutionists don't agree with each other. For example, do you
agree with this statement:
"There is one single common ancestor to all life on this earth".
Do you agree or disagree with the above statement. Lots of people in the
evolution movement (including my most recent science professor) agrees
with that statement. He even believes the above mentioned common ancestor
evolved from the first cell that came to life in the primordial pond. Do
you believe that?
Thanks again for 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.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
