On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:46:18 -0800,

I believe that evolutionists do great harm to their cause when they use
ad hominem attacts.

You are the only one with a "cause" genius.

In article <dkaqn4$gql$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>,
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <jason-0211050842080001@pm4-broad-53.snlo.dialup.fix.net>

jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:

In article <dk94dq$6nl$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>,
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <1130890825.358561.133150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

iftikhargul@gmail.com writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <1130884585.179835.48300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

iftikhargul@gmail.com writes:

Blah, Blah, Blah. Means nothing. It is the same kind of

reasoning some

will use with different twist to prove the existance of God, which
will obviously, not make sense to you either. Prove

scientificaly and

use more specificaly evolution and life science appropriate for this
forum. Take for example the case of a single cell. A cell which has
just died and has all the chemicals in it fails to function as

an alive

cell. What was making it tick before and soon after it dies, though
nothing significant has changed as far as chemistry is concerned.

Cells die due to "significant" biochemical changes. If the
chemistry does not change, the cell keeps on ticking.

Biochemical changes can be externally induced -- dessication,
extremes of temperature, pH shifts, radiation, toxins,
trauma, breach of the cell membrane, "intentional" destruction
by other cells in the immume system-- or they can be
internally induced, when the cell responds to programmed
catabolism or telomere-moderated cell death.


But if you have any studies which, somehow, show cells dying
off in the absences of any chang in their biochemistry, I would be
happy to hear of them.

-- cary

I agree with your analysis but the so called life force is not
understood. Take the example of a simple virus which has only a few
hundred to a few thousand bases making it's DNA enclosed within a
simple memberane. All, well within the capability of modern science.
Yet even a virus, once it stops functioning, can not be revieved
without any changes to it's chemistry. No one knows yet the exact
nature of the life factor that makes that virus tick, i.e multiply by
taking over other cells machinary and then transmit itself to other
hosts. Artificial virus should be no different than the a virus created
by nature but it's still impossible to synthesize it despite world wide
efforts to reach that goal.

Well, actually that's not the case. The polio virus, for example, has
been built "from scratch", and it was capable both of infecting human

cells in vitro

and of paralyzing mice in vivo (done by a team at the University of New
York at Stony Brook, back in 2002).


-- cary

--cary,
What materials did they use to build it from scratch?
Jason

"Machine-generated DNA". Here's one reference:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2539


-- cary

I'll read the article. I don't know enough about DNA and viruses to figure
out whether they truly did ( or did not) create from scratch a new virus.
Jason

Blah, Blah, Blah. Means nothing. It is the same kind of reasoning some
will use with different twist to prove the existance of God, which
will obviously, not make sense to you either. Prove scientificaly and
use more specificaly evolution and life science appropriate for this
forum. Take for example the case of a single cell. A cell which has
just died and has all the chemicals in it fails to function as an alive
cell. What was making it tick before and soon after it dies, though
nothing significant has changed as far as chemistry is concerned. Once
you can do that scientifically, you may be qulaified to dsicuss
evolution, God etc. If not stick to your religion, Athesim and forget
about converting others.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Means nothing.

Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God.

Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God. Their belief in "non
existance of God" which they express with emotional outbursts and foul
language, fits the Classic defenition of religion and they are very
passionate about it (or dare I say very religious about it). I do not
believe in Christianity or anything similar for that matter but I am
open minded and am willing to learn and share my thoughts. It is so sad
to see that those who believe in their own intellegence lack
intelligence to come with cool intelligent arguments so that others
could also befit from their dillusions.

Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God. Their belief in "non
existance of God"

Katt wrote:

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.

Katt: Theists don't have faith in The Dictionary.

Allow me to read some scripture from it:

religion: n. 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; 2: institution to express belief *in* a divine
power.

Hmmm... atheists don't believe in gods... religion requires belief in
the supernatural or divine... hmmm...

I have determined it! Atheism is NOT a religion! Theists are
generally stupid!

All hail! For The Dictionary is the way, the truth, and the light.
Believe in it and ye shall not perish.

Katt wrote:

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.

Katt: Theists don't have faith in The Dictionary.

Allow me to read some scripture from it:

religion: n. 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; 2: institution to express belief *in* a divine
power>
Hmmm... atheists don't believe in gods... religion requires belief in
the supernatural or divine... hmmm...

I have determined it! Atheism is NOT a religion! Theists are
generally stupid!

All hail! For The Dictionary is the way, the truth, and the light.
Believe in it and ye shall not perish.

Theists are generally stupid!