| 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: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 04:18:48 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote
"theorised" is a fancy way saying that you have no proof.
What are you talking about? Certainly not evolution.
Which begs the question: Why your dishonest "Bait & Switch"
tactics?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 05:29:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:58:47 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <4phvm1hbdr1r7o7cq8lc35du9n8iuhe579@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:08:28 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <m0ftm1pirmvs9c3ismf38cj31mcaoccm6r@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 08:42:28 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
(Jason) in
<jason-0611050842280001@pm1-broad-71.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[snip]
When I told them that there has NEVER been an experiment that life can
evolve from non-life--they stated that it did not matter to them. They
believe that life evolved from non-life based on FAITH instead of facts or
proof. At least the Christians are honest when they say that they have
faith that the Bible is true in regard to God creating the earth.
I don't know who "they" are, but *I* think that life came from
non-life via natural processes* for *reasons*. We have evidence that
the Earth was once too hot for life as we know it. We have evidence
that the Universe was one too hot for life as we know it. We even have
evidence that the Universe was once too hot for matter as we know it.
So, once there was no life, now there is. As such, it is pretty clear
that life arose somehow. There is a large body of evidence and
reasoning that suggests that life on Earth probably arose on Earth.
As for how it arose we don't know. But we do know that a wide variety
of various compounds, complex hydro-carbons, amino acids, etc., can
form naturally under the kind of conditions we expect to have occurred
at the early Earth.
We have *plenty* of evidence here, not simply faith.
*Natural processes like those that keep planets in orbits and enable
oxygen and hydrogen to combine. Maybe there is g(G)od(s) behind those,
but they still seem law-like.
That's classical evolution theory. The reality is that there is no proof
that life can evolve from non-life.
Has anybody claimed it does? As already explained evolution is
theorised to have occurred from the first life capable of evolving not
from no life. How this life came into existence is another subject.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
"theorised" is a fancy way saying that you have no proof. Instead, you
believe it based on faith that it happened that way.
Please, look it up in a dictionary.
To help you, theory is an attempt to explain evidence, not a proof.
Nobody has claimed theory is proof and nobody is required to
'believe' it. Quite the reverse in fact.
It is just a suggested model of the real world and a suggestion for
further research.
Oh, and please, stop telling me what I believe or do not believe
will you? It is usually wrong.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 04:31:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:58:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0711051358480001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <4phvm1hbdr1r7o7cq8lc35du9n8iuhe579@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:08:28 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <m0ftm1pirmvs9c3ismf38cj31mcaoccm6r@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 08:42:28 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
(Jason) in
<jason-0611050842280001@pm1-broad-71.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[snip]
When I told them that there has NEVER been an experiment that life can
evolve from non-life--they stated that it did not matter to them. They
believe that life evolved from non-life based on FAITH instead of facts or
proof. At least the Christians are honest when they say that they have
faith that the Bible is true in regard to God creating the earth.
I don't know who "they" are, but *I* think that life came from
non-life via natural processes* for *reasons*. We have evidence that
the Earth was once too hot for life as we know it. We have evidence
that the Universe was one too hot for life as we know it. We even have
evidence that the Universe was once too hot for matter as we know it.
So, once there was no life, now there is. As such, it is pretty clear
that life arose somehow. There is a large body of evidence and
reasoning that suggests that life on Earth probably arose on Earth.
As for how it arose we don't know. But we do know that a wide variety
of various compounds, complex hydro-carbons, amino acids, etc., can
form naturally under the kind of conditions we expect to have occurred
at the early Earth.
We have *plenty* of evidence here, not simply faith.
*Natural processes like those that keep planets in orbits and enable
oxygen and hydrogen to combine. Maybe there is g(G)od(s) behind those,
but they still seem law-like.
That's classical evolution theory. The reality is that there is no proof
that life can evolve from non-life.
Has anybody claimed it does? As already explained evolution is
theorised to have occurred from the first life capable of evolving not
from no life. How this life came into existence is another subject.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
"theorised" is a fancy way saying that you have no proof. Instead, you
believe it based on faith that it happened that way.
Why am I not surprised that you do not know what a scientific theory is.
Read this slowly: A scientific theory is a model that explains the
evidence that has been gathered, shows the relationships that have been
observed, and provides information that helps scientists know what
questions they have to ask next. It is not in any way a guess and it is
based upon evidence.
Anyone who presumes to critique science without knowing such a
fundamental concept should be embarrassed and should apologize to all
scientists for such an ignorant libel.
The theory of evolution does not cover the beginning of life on earth
because it doesn't need to. It covers the history of life on earth,
complex enough in itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
07 Nov 2005 08:22:58 PM |
|
|
In article <pqkvm15emr0737basoremtufleb54eq7gi@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:58:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-0711051358480001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <4phvm1hbdr1r7o7cq8lc35du9n8iuhe579@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:08:28 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <m0ftm1pirmvs9c3ismf38cj31mcaoccm6r@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 08:42:28 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
(Jason) in
<jason-0611050842280001@pm1-broad-71.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[snip]
When I told them that there has NEVER been an experiment that life can
evolve from non-life--they stated that it did not matter to them. They
believe that life evolved from non-life based on FAITH instead of
facts or
proof. At least the Christians are honest when they say that they have
faith that the Bible is true in regard to God creating the earth.
I don't know who "they" are, but *I* think that life came from
non-life via natural processes* for *reasons*. We have evidence that
the Earth was once too hot for life as we know it. We have evidence
that the Universe was one too hot for life as we know it. We even have
evidence that the Universe was once too hot for matter as we know it.
So, once there was no life, now there is. As such, it is pretty clear
that life arose somehow. There is a large body of evidence and
reasoning that suggests that life on Earth probably arose on Earth.
As for how it arose we don't know. But we do know that a wide variety
of various compounds, complex hydro-carbons, amino acids, etc., can
form naturally under the kind of conditions we expect to have occurred
at the early Earth.
We have *plenty* of evidence here, not simply faith.
*Natural processes like those that keep planets in orbits and enable
oxygen and hydrogen to combine. Maybe there is g(G)od(s) behind those,
but they still seem law-like.
That's classical evolution theory. The reality is that there is no proof
that life can evolve from non-life.
Has anybody claimed it does? As already explained evolution is
theorised to have occurred from the first life capable of evolving not
from no life. How this life came into existence is another subject.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
"theorised" is a fancy way saying that you have no proof. Instead, you
believe it based on faith that it happened that way.
Why am I not surprised that you do not know what a scientific theory is.
Read this slowly: A scientific theory is a model that explains the
evidence that has been gathered, shows the relationships that have been
observed, and provides information that helps scientists know what
questions they have to ask next. It is not in any way a guess and it is
based upon evidence.
Anyone who presumes to critique science without knowing such a
fundamental concept should be embarrassed and should apologize to all
scientists for such an ignorant libel.
The theory of evolution does not cover the beginning of life on earth
because it doesn't need to. It covers the history of life on earth,
complex enough in itself.
While I was in college, I took a course related to evolution. The
professor (and the textbook) discussed the primordial pond theory. It's
possible that they no longer include it in textbooks or in lectures
related to evolution. The professor claimed that the first cell (or cells)
evolved from non-life in the primordial pond. That's the reason I refer to
"life evolving from non-life" in some of my posts.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 09:00:21 AM |
|
|
"While I was in college, I took a course related to evolution. The
professor (and the textbook) discussed the primordial pond theory. It's
possible that they no longer include it in textbooks or in lectures
related to evolution. The professor claimed that the first cell (or cells)
evolved from non-life in the primordial pond. That's the reason I refer to
"life evolving from non-life" in some of my posts."
And you have now been corrected so many times for you to repeat your
previous mistake now makes it a false witness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 10:54:26 AM |
|
|
In article <4370bd85$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"While I was in college, I took a course related to evolution. The
professor (and the textbook) discussed the primordial pond theory. It's
possible that they no longer include it in textbooks or in lectures
related to evolution. The professor claimed that the first cell (or cells)
evolved from non-life in the primordial pond. That's the reason I refer to
"life evolving from non-life" in some of my posts."
And you have now been corrected so many times for you to repeat your
previous mistake now makes it a false witness.
A recent poster (that is an evolutionist) told me the following:
"There is one common ancestor to all life on earth".
That's similar to what I learned in an evolution related class and in a
evolution seminar.
Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 10:18:22 AM |
|
|
"A recent poster (that is an evolutionist) told me the following:
"There is one common ancestor to all life on earth".
That's similar to what I learned in an evolution related class and in a
evolution seminar."
You have been corrected multiple times that the theory of evolution
doesn't depend on any particular idea of origins, it is about the change
in life over millions of years, for that reason for you to continue
forcing this origin and evolution point is a false witness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 01:02:32 PM |
|
|
In article <4370cfcd$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"A recent poster (that is an evolutionist) told me the following:
"There is one common ancestor to all life on earth".
That's similar to what I learned in an evolution related class and in a
evolution seminar."
You have been corrected multiple times that the theory of evolution
doesn't depend on any particular idea of origins, it is about the change
in life over millions of years, for that reason for you to continue
forcing this origin and evolution point is a false witness.
You failed to answer my question. Do you believe that there is one common
ancestor to all life on earth? I should note that a local professor that
is an advocate of evolution certainly believes it. He even has a "tree
of life" chart showing all life coming from that tree which represents
the common ancestor mentioned above.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 01:38:37 PM |
|
|
"You failed to answer my question. Do you believe that there is one common
ancestor to all life on earth? I should note that a local professor that
is an advocate of evolution certainly believes it. He even has a "tree of
life" chart showing all life coming from that tree which represents the
common ancestor mentioned above."
Your question was not relevant to the point being made. You want origins
tied to evolution so you can in turn declare the latter false for not
being able to recreate the former. To which I have replied that you must
first show me that life on mars doesn't exist before we can accept cs as
valid. There are many possible sources of life on earth but it is
irrelevant to the question of how that life changed for millions of years
from its start. Many christian evolutionists consider it possible that God
was the source of the original common life form and the tree the record of
what happened thereafter. Will you now give up as false witness the
forced connection between the question of origin and the evidence of
evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 09:02:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"You failed to answer my question. Do you believe that there is one common
ancestor to all life on earth? I should note that a local professor that
is an advocate of evolution certainly believes it. He even has a "tree of
life" chart showing all life coming from that tree which represents the
common ancestor mentioned above."
Your question was not relevant to the point being made. You want origins
tied to evolution so you can in turn declare the latter false for not
being able to recreate the former. To which I have replied that you must
first show me that life on mars doesn't exist before we can accept cs as
valid. There are many possible sources of life on earth but it is
irrelevant to the question of how that life changed for millions of years
from its start. Many christian evolutionists consider it possible that God
was the source of the original common life form and the tree the record of
what happened thereafter. Will you now give up as false witness the
forced connection between the question of origin and the evidence of
evolution?
He won't since his misunderstanding of evolution is based on a "belief"
system - no matter how often and how carefully you correct Jason, he will
still continue to build of a false image of evolution that he wants to take
potshots at. The real version of evolution is beyond the reach of his
mythology.
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 03:22:34 PM |
|
|
In article <4370febd$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"You failed to answer my question. Do you believe that there is one common
ancestor to all life on earth? I should note that a local professor that
is an advocate of evolution certainly believes it. He even has a "tree of
life" chart showing all life coming from that tree which represents the
common ancestor mentioned above."
Your question was not relevant to the point being made. You want origins
tied to evolution so you can in turn declare the latter false for not
being able to recreate the former. To which I have replied that you must
first show me that life on mars doesn't exist before we can accept cs as
valid. There are many possible sources of life on earth but it is
irrelevant to the question of how that life changed for millions of years
from its start. Many christian evolutionists consider it possible that God
was the source of the original common life form and the tree the record of
what happened thereafter. Will you now give up as false witness the
forced connection between the question of origin and the evidence of
evolution?
If the foundation of a building (abiogenesis) is built in sand instead of
on solid rock--it means the entire building will eventually fall down. The
reason that I dwell on abiogenesis is because that is the reason that
evolution theory (except for micro-evolution) is NOT a valid theory. It's
also the reason that I am not an evolutionist. If scientist locate the
skeleton or bones of the "common ancestor" that apes and humans evolved
from--I will become an advocate
of macro evolution. I am already an advocate for 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 03:02:06 PM |
|
|
"If the foundation of a building (abiogenesis) is built in sand instead of
on solid rock--it means the entire building will eventually fall down."
And so it is with id and cs as science, foundations of air pulled from the
blue, id has no evidence at all and cs has scant evidence it has
discovered
relying instead on that discovered by science. If id and cs even had a
foundation of sand we might consider it, but air makes it impossible.
"The reason that I dwell on abiogenesis is because that is the reason that
evolution theory (except for micro-evolution) is NOT a valid theory."
Until recently you didn't know that term you so freely now toss about as
though you are learned in the topic. You accept cs because you like the
religious views of its inventors period.
"It's also the reason that I am not an evolutionist. If scientist locate
the skeleton or bones of the "common ancestor" that apes and humans
evolved
from--I will become an advocate of macro evolution."
Given your current unlearned state, how will you know what is a common
creature?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 05:15:01 PM |
|
|
In article <4371124e$0$76289$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"If the foundation of a building (abiogenesis) is built in sand instead of
on solid rock--it means the entire building will eventually fall down."
And so it is with id and cs as science, foundations of air pulled from the
blue, id has no evidence at all and cs has scant evidence it has
discovered
relying instead on that discovered by science. If id and cs even had a
foundation of sand we might consider it, but air makes it impossible.
"The reason that I dwell on abiogenesis is because that is the reason that
evolution theory (except for micro-evolution) is NOT a valid theory."
Until recently you didn't know that term you so freely now toss about as
though you are learned in the topic. You accept cs because you like the
religious views of its inventors period.
"It's also the reason that I am not an evolutionist. If scientist locate
the skeleton or bones of the "common ancestor" that apes and humans
evolved
from--I will become an advocate of macro evolution."
Given your current unlearned state, how will you know what is a common
creature?
Hello,
You are right--I learned the term in this newsgroup. I looked it up in the
dictionary. I don't think that the evolution professor ever used that term
when he was discussing the primordial pond. You are also correct in saying
that I am an advocate for creation science partly because I am a
Christian. I also made the decision due to the fact that no scientist has
found the "common ancestor" mentioned in 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 04:59:45 PM |
|
|
"I also made the decision due to the fact that no scientist has found the
"common ancestor" mentioned in my post."
I presented you two links which discuss proposed creatures that could be
same. Because of your profound ignorance of science how will you know if
these creatures are good possibilites or not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 09:07:52 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
You are also correct in saying
that I am an advocate for creation science partly because I am a
Christian. ...
Exclusively because you claim to be part of a particular branch of
Christianity (It's evolving you know and that is why there are so many
different version.).
Your version of "creationism" is so convoluted that there are lots of
different versions of it because different branches, cults, dogmas, etc. of
Christians cannot agree even within the same faith classification.
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 10:12:16 PM |
|
|
In article <2452877.GnSKOsfgTF@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
You are also correct in saying
that I am an advocate for creation science partly because I am a
Christian. ...
Exclusively because you claim to be part of a particular branch of
Christianity (It's evolving you know and that is why there are so many
different version.).
Your version of "creationism" is so convoluted that there are lots of
different versions of it because different branches, cults, dogmas, etc. of
Christians cannot agree even within the same faith classification.
I saw the results of a recent pole. Over sixty percent of Americans believe
that ID and Evolution should be taught in science classes. If the pole is
correct, more people in America agree with me than agree with you. I realize
that it's politically correct (PC) to be an evolutionist. This is
especially true in most colleges. When I was in college, only one of the
science professors was an advocate of creation science. The other science
professors ostracized him. I doubt that there are any advocates of
creation science in most state colleges. Big Brother (evolution movement)
is doing a great job controlling
the state college science departments and public school science classes. I
don't blame them from rushing to court to prevent the teaching of ID. They
see it as a threat to their monopoly.
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: "Jon Skinner" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 02:53:52 AM |
|
|
Jason <jason@nospam.com> wrote:
I saw the results of a recent pole. Over sixty percent of Americans believe
that ID and Evolution should be taught in science classes. If the pole is
correct, more people in America agree with me than agree with you.
Asking someone from Warsaw for their opinion is hardly scientific.
They'd be better off if they conducted a poll.
But since you mention it, I would like to see creationism taught in
American schools too. If the U.S. breeds a generation of scientifically
illiterate dunderheads, this will be good for us out here in the rest of
the world. We'll make a packet selling our new technologies to the USA.
Go for it!
--
Jon
a.a.#277
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 10:27:18 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <2452877.GnSKOsfgTF@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
< > wrote:
Jason wrote:
You are also correct in saying
that I am an advocate for creation science partly because I am a
Christian. ...
Exclusively because you claim to be part of a particular branch of
Christianity (It's evolving you know and that is why there are so many
different version.).
Your version of "creationism" is so convoluted that there are lots of
different versions of it because different branches, cults, dogmas, etc.
of Christians cannot agree even within the same faith classification.
I saw the results of a recent pole. Over sixty percent of Americans
believe that ID and Evolution should be taught in science classes. If the
pole is correct, more people in America agree with me than agree with you.
I realize that it's politically correct (PC) to be an evolutionist. This
is especially true in most colleges. When I was in college, only one of
the science professors was an advocate of creation science. The other
science professors ostracized him. I doubt that there are any advocates of
creation science in most state colleges. Big Brother (evolution movement)
is doing a great job controlling
the state college science departments and public school science classes. I
don't blame them from rushing to court to prevent the teaching of ID. They
see it as a threat to their monopoly.
Jason
Enough whining. Your mythology is failing the test of time and these are
some of it's last gasps. The god of the gaps gets smaller and weaker every
year.
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 10:53:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:12:16 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <2452877.GnSKOsfgTF@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
You are also correct in saying
that I am an advocate for creation science partly because I am a
Christian. ...
Exclusively because you claim to be part of a particular branch of
Christianity (It's evolving you know and that is why there are so many
different version.).
Your version of "creationism" is so convoluted that there are lots of
different versions of it because different branches, cults, dogmas, etc. of
Christians cannot agree even within the same faith classification.
I saw the results of a recent pole.
The word you are searching for is poll. The put flags on poles.
Over sixty percent of Americans believe
that ID and Evolution should be taught in science classes. If the pole
Ah so the poll was conducted by a Pole (from Poland?)
is
correct, more people in America agree with me than agree with you. I realize
that it's politically correct (PC) to be an evolutionist. This is
especially true in most colleges. When I was in college, only one of the
science professors was an advocate of creation science. The other science
professors ostracized him.
Quite right, ID should be taught as religion not science. ID is belief
based whilst science is evidence based. Horses for courses.
I doubt that there are any advocates of
creation science in most state colleges. Big Brother (evolution movement)
is doing a great job controlling
the state college science departments and public school science classes. I
don't blame them from rushing to court to prevent the teaching of ID. They
see it as a threat to their monopoly.
In the fields of science science reigns, in the arts the arts reign,
and in the church religion reigns. The priest in his church decides
what to preach and in the Halls of Science the science professor. Did
not one of the gospels writers put into the mouth of Jesus, "Render
unto ceasar that which is ceasars and that unto god that which is
gods"? (from memory) Science is not religion and religion is not
science they are totally different things.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
08 Nov 2005 03:36:15 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote
The reason that I dwell on abiogenesis is because that
is the reason that evolution theory (except for
micro-evolution) is NOT a valid theory.
Is that the scam? That's why you've settled on the
bait-and-switch tactics of a used car saleman?
You can't attack evolution, so you raise something that
evolution doesn't address (nor needs to address), and
then pretend this says something about evolution?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 06:59:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:22:34 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <4370febd$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"You failed to answer my question. Do you believe that there is one common
ancestor to all life on earth? I should note that a local professor that
is an advocate of evolution certainly believes it. He even has a "tree of
life" chart showing all life coming from that tree which represents the
common ancestor mentioned above."
Your question was not relevant to the point being made. You want origins
tied to evolution so you can in turn declare the latter false for not
being able to recreate the former. To which I have replied that you must
first show me that life on mars doesn't exist before we can accept cs as
valid. There are many possible sources of life on earth but it is
irrelevant to the question of how that life changed for millions of years
from its start. Many christian evolutionists consider it possible that God
was the source of the original common life form and the tree the record of
what happened thereafter. Will you now give up as false witness the
forced connection between the question of origin and the evidence of
evolution?
If the foundation of a building (abiogenesis) is built in sand instead of
on solid rock--it means the entire building will eventually fall down.
If pigs could fly and they were pink and invisible then..
Pigs cannot fly and evolution is not like a building.
The
reason that I dwell on abiogenesis is because that is the reason that
evolution theory (except for micro-evolution) is NOT a valid theory.
Without a creator, and you have not demonstrated there is or was one,
abiogenesis must have occurred since we exist. Not a theory but
a fact. All we need do is find out what that abiogenesis was. If that
is done will you then abandoned your unfound, unproved, total lack
of evidence of a creator? We seek evidence you make a leap of
belief wwithout evidence and then seek to disprove that evolution
has occurred by presenting a fake idea of what evolution is and
then seek to discredit it. If you were so certain actually evolution
is fake then attack that not your creationist straw 'macro' evolution
where cats are supposed to turn into dogs and rose blooms into
Oak trees.
It's
also the reason that I am not an evolutionist. If scientist locate the
skeleton or bones of the "common ancestor" that apes and humans evolved
from--I will become an advocate
of macro evolution. I am already an advocate for micro-evolution.
I suggest you consult the DK Atlas of World history which has a
large map pinpointing where such skeletal remains have been found.
I also suggest you visit the Natural History museum and enter
'ancestor' into the search box and you will find several reference
to evidence.
Friendly advice:
Might I suggest that if you wish to discuss evolution any
further then you aught to find out what actual evolution is and
the actual theories first, and don't try to pass off the creationist
straw theories of evolution, pretending they are real evolution.
We are wise to that trick and it does not work here.. Reading
one book by one man opposed to evolution makes you an
ignoramus regarding actual evolution not an expert. Otherwise
you will just continue to come across as a fool spouting about
something which is ignorant of and fall flat on your face again.
Strewing banana skins was dead easy in your case.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 10:35:25 AM |
|
|
In article <6ar3n15itloie2mpu1ad3qauc6hnujvcae@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:22:34 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <4370febd$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"You failed to answer my question. Do you believe that there is one common
ancestor to all life on earth? I should note that a local professor that
is an advocate of evolution certainly believes it. He even has a "tree of
life" chart showing all life coming from that tree which represents the
common ancestor mentioned above."
Your question was not relevant to the point being made. You want origins
tied to evolution so you can in turn declare the latter false for not
being able to recreate the former. To which I have replied that you must
first show me that life on mars doesn't exist before we can accept cs as
valid. There are many possible sources of life on earth but it is
irrelevant to the question of how that life changed for millions of years
from its start. Many christian evolutionists consider it possible that God
was the source of the original common life form and the tree the record of
what happened thereafter. Will you now give up as false witness the
forced connection between the question of origin and the evidence of
evolution?
If the foundation of a building (abiogenesis) is built in sand instead of
on solid rock--it means the entire building will eventually fall down.
If pigs could fly and they were pink and invisible then..
Pigs cannot fly and evolution is not like a building.
The
reason that I dwell on abiogenesis is because that is the reason that
evolution theory (except for micro-evolution) is NOT a valid theory.
Without a creator, and you have not demonstrated there is or was one,
abiogenesis must have occurred since we exist. Not a theory but
a fact. All we need do is find out what that abiogenesis was. If that
is done will you then abandoned your unfound, unproved, total lack
of evidence of a creator? We seek evidence you make a leap of
belief wwithout evidence and then seek to disprove that evolution
has occurred by presenting a fake idea of what evolution is and
then seek to discredit it. If you were so certain actually evolution
is fake then attack that not your creationist straw 'macro' evolution
where cats are supposed to turn into dogs and rose blooms into
Oak trees.
It's
also the reason that I am not an evolutionist. If scientist locate the
skeleton or bones of the "common ancestor" that apes and humans evolved
from--I will become an advocate
of macro evolution. I am already an advocate for micro-evolution.
I suggest you consult the DK Atlas of World history which has a
large map pinpointing where such skeletal remains have been found.
I also suggest you visit the Natural History museum and enter
'ancestor' into the search box and you will find several reference
to evidence.
Friendly advice:
Might I suggest that if you wish to discuss evolution any
further then you aught to find out what actual evolution is and
the actual theories first, and don't try to pass off the creationist
straw theories of evolution, pretending they are real evolution.
We are wise to that trick and it does not work here.. Reading
one book by one man opposed to evolution makes you an
ignoramus regarding actual evolution not an expert. Otherwise
you will just continue to come across as a fool spouting about
something which is ignorant of and fall flat on your face again.
Strewing banana skins was dead easy in your case.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
If a scientist can prove in an experiment that life can evolve from
non-life, I will become an advocate for macro-evolution. I already am an
advocate for micro-evolution. In other words, I will become an
evolutionist and will no longer be an advocate for creation science or ID.
Please delete sci.life-extension from the header due to complaints from
some of the subscribers of that newsgroup. Place future posts related to
this subject in this newsgroup: alt.atheism
--
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: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 11:25:07 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <6ar3n15itloie2mpu1ad3qauc6hnujvcae@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:22:34 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <4370febd$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"You failed to answer my question. Do you believe that there is one
common ancestor to all life on earth? I should note that a local
professor that is an advocate of evolution certainly believes it. He
even has a "tree of life" chart showing all life coming from that tree
which represents the common ancestor mentioned above."
Your question was not relevant to the point being made. You want
origins tied to evolution so you can in turn declare the latter false
for not
being able to recreate the former. To which I have replied that you
must first show me that life on mars doesn't exist before we can
accept cs as
valid. There are many possible sources of life on earth but it is
irrelevant to the question of how that life changed for millions of
years from its start. Many christian evolutionists consider it
possible that God was the source of the original common life form and
the tree the record of
what happened thereafter. Will you now give up as false witness the
forced connection between the question of origin and the evidence of
evolution?
If the foundation of a building (abiogenesis) is built in sand instead
of on solid rock--it means the entire building will eventually fall
down.
If pigs could fly and they were pink and invisible then..
Pigs cannot fly and evolution is not like a building.
The
reason that I dwell on abiogenesis is because that is the reason that
evolution theory (except for micro-evolution) is NOT a valid theory.
Without a creator, and you have not demonstrated there is or was one,
abiogenesis must have occurred since we exist. Not a theory but
a fact. All we need do is find out what that abiogenesis was. If that
is done will you then abandoned your unfound, unproved, total lack
of evidence of a creator? We seek evidence you make a leap of
belief wwithout evidence and then seek to disprove that evolution
has occurred by presenting a fake idea of what evolution is and
then seek to discredit it. If you were so certain actually evolution
is fake then attack that not your creationist straw 'macro' evolution
where cats are supposed to turn into dogs and rose blooms into
Oak trees.
It's
also the reason that I am not an evolutionist. If scientist locate the
skeleton or bones of the "common ancestor" that apes and humans evolved
from--I will become an advocate
of macro evolution. I am already an advocate for micro-evolution.
I suggest you consult the DK Atlas of World history which has a
large map pinpointing where such skeletal remains have been found.
I also suggest you visit the Natural History museum and enter
'ancestor' into the search box and you will find several reference
to evidence.
Friendly advice:
Might I suggest that if you wish to discuss evolution any
further then you aught to find out what actual evolution is and
the actual theories first, and don't try to pass off the creationist
straw theories of evolution, pretending they are real evolution.
We are wise to that trick and it does not work here.. Reading
one book by one man opposed to evolution makes you an
ignoramus regarding actual evolution not an expert. Otherwise
you will just continue to come across as a fool spouting about
something which is ignorant of and fall flat on your face again.
Strewing banana skins was dead easy in your case.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
If a scientist can prove in an experiment that life can evolve from
non-life, I will become an advocate for macro-evolution.
How about an easer test - if you can "prove" that a God exists and that he
is the author of creationism, then I will believe in him.
I already am an
advocate for micro-evolution. In other words, I will become an
evolutionist and will no longer be an advocate for creation science or ID.
Please delete sci.life-extension from the header due to complaints from
some of the subscribers of that newsgroup. Place future posts related to
this subject in this newsgroup: alt.atheism
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 01:11:23 PM |
|
|
In article <5710970.iNuVxJTnCY@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <6ar3n15itloie2mpu1ad3qauc6hnujvcae@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:22:34 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <4370febd$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"You failed to answer my question. Do you believe that there is one
common ancestor to all life on earth? I should note that a local
professor that is an advocate of evolution certainly believes it. He
even has a "tree of life" chart showing all life coming from that tree
which represents the common ancestor mentioned above."
Your question was not relevant to the point being made. You want
origins tied to evolution so you can in turn declare the latter false
for not
being able to recreate the former. To which I have replied that you
must first show me that life on mars doesn't exist before we can
accept cs as
valid. There are many possible sources of life on earth but it is
irrelevant to the question of how that life changed for millions of
years from its start. Many christian evolutionists consider it
possible that God was the source of the original common life form and
the tree the record of
what happened thereafter. Will you now give up as false witness the
forced connection between the question of origin and the evidence of
evolution?
If the foundation of a building (abiogenesis) is built in sand instead
of on solid rock--it means the entire building will eventually fall
down.
If pigs could fly and they were pink and invisible then..
Pigs cannot fly and evolution is not like a building.
The
reason that I dwell on abiogenesis is because that is the reason that
evolution theory (except for micro-evolution) is NOT a valid theory.
Without a creator, and you have not demonstrated there is or was one,
abiogenesis must have occurred since we exist. Not a theory but
a fact. All we need do is find out what that abiogenesis was. If that
is done will you then abandoned your unfound, unproved, total lack
of evidence of a creator? We seek evidence you make a leap of
belief wwithout evidence and then seek to disprove that evolution
has occurred by presenting a fake idea of what evolution is and
then seek to discredit it. If you were so certain actually evolution
is fake then attack that not your creationist straw 'macro' evolution
where cats are supposed to turn into dogs and rose blooms into
Oak trees.
It's
also the reason that I am not an evolutionist. If scientist locate the
skeleton or bones of the "common ancestor" that apes and humans evolved
from--I will become an advocate
of macro evolution. I am already an advocate for micro-evolution.
I suggest you consult the DK Atlas of World history which has a
large map pinpointing where such skeletal remains have been found.
I also suggest you visit the Natural History museum and enter
'ancestor' into the search box and you will find several reference
to evidence.
Friendly advice:
Might I suggest that if you wish to discuss evolution any
further then you aught to find out what actual evolution is and
the actual theories first, and don't try to pass off the creationist
straw theories of evolution, pretending they are real evolution.
We are wise to that trick and it does not work here.. Reading
one book by one man opposed to evolution makes you an
ignoramus regarding actual evolution not an expert. Otherwise
you will just continue to come across as a fool spouting about
something which is ignorant of and fall flat on your face again.
Strewing banana skins was dead easy in your case.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
If a scientist can prove in an experiment that life can evolve from
non-life, I will become an advocate for macro-evolution.
How about an easer test - if you can "prove" that a God exists and that he
is the author of creationism, then I will believe in him.
The proof will happen the same day that you die.
I already am an
advocate for micro-evolution. In other words, I will become an
evolutionist and will no longer be an advocate for creation science or ID.
Please delete sci.life-extension from the header due to complaints from
some of the subscribers of that newsgroup. Place future posts related to
this subject in this newsgroup: alt.atheism
--
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: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 09:18:12 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <5710970.iNuVxJTnCY@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
< > wrote:
Jason wrote:
If a scientist can prove in an experiment that life can evolve from
non-life, I will become an advocate for macro-evolution.
How about an easer test - if you can "prove" that a God exists and that
he is the author of creationism, then I will believe in him.
The proof will happen the same day that you die.
Surely the Hebrew God can do better than that. When you die, you will know
that the ancient Egyptian religion was the true one when your life is
weighed against the feather of truth. Who's going to preform the opening
of the mouth ceremony for you after death?
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
09 Nov 2005 11:37:25 PM |
|
|
In article <6849469.J2gUf0Aj4l@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <5710970.iNuVxJTnCY@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
If a scientist can prove in an experiment that life can evolve from
non-life, I will become an advocate for macro-evolution.
How about an easer test - if you can "prove" that a God exists and that
he is the author of creationism, then I will believe in him.
The proof will happen the same day that you die.
Surely the Hebrew God can do better than that. When you die, you will know
that the ancient Egyptian religion was the true one when your life is
weighed against the feather of truth. Who's going to preform the opening
of the mouth ceremony for you after death?
Which religion are you referring to? I once owned a book related to world
religions.
--
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: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 09:15:44 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <6849469.J2gUf0Aj4l@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
< > wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <5710970.iNuVxJTnCY@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
< > wrote:
Jason wrote:
If a scientist can prove in an experiment that life can evolve from
non-life, I will become an advocate for macro-evolution.
How about an easer test - if you can "prove" that a God exists and
that he is the author of creationism, then I will believe in him.
The proof will happen the same day that you die.
Surely the Hebrew God can do better than that. When you die, you will
know that the ancient Egyptian religion was the true one when your life
is
weighed against the feather of truth. Who's going to preform the opening
of the mouth ceremony for you after death?
Which religion are you referring to? I once owned a book related to world
religions.
Did you read the post? "ancient Egyptian religion"
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 11:55:21 AM |
|
|
In article <1303292.QM4PLllZur@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <6849469.J2gUf0Aj4l@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article <5710970.iNuVxJTnCY@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:
Jason wrote:
If a scientist can prove in an experiment that life can evolve from
non-life, I will become an advocate for macro-evolution.
How about an easer test - if you can "prove" that a God exists and
that he is the author of creationism, then I will believe in him.
The proof will happen the same day that you die.
Surely the Hebrew God can do better than that. When you die, you will
know that the ancient Egyptian religion was the true one when your life
is
weighed against the feather of truth. Who's going t | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
