| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MsAnthrope" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 08:41:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?! |
In article <1107423912.431243.254020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Orion7
says...
Don't you know evolution is a farce? You are obviously a product of the
brain washing which goes on in our Schools, Colleges and Universities.
I have seen the desperate lengths these Professors and Scientists go to
make people believe in evolution, even fabricating evidence to support
their unsupportable theories.
1st Rule of Creationism: Ignored evidence will go away
2nd Rule of Creationism: Interpret any challenge as personal insult
3rd Rule of Creationism: Claim evidence then quietly slip away
4th Rule of Creationism: Don't be confused by facts
5th Rule of Creationism: Insist that science ignores your proof
6th Rule of Creationism: Claim superiority for Christian education.
7th Rule of Creationism: Always appear to know more than you do.
8th Rule of Creationism: Shift the burden of proof to your critics.
9th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.
10th Rule of Creationism: Never acknowledge your demonstrated errors
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 10:15:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:16:55 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
You've been told before that mutation isn't the only driving force in
evolution, so to continue this line of argument is dishonesty on your
part.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 04:04:39 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:e82k11dril5hecijgc8jpku3vahv5esq0j@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
You've been told before that mutation isn't the only driving force in evolution,
Mutations 'coupled with natural selection,' but the theory is dependent on mutations.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 06:56:54 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:380edoF5k4mtjU1@individual.net:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:e82k11dril5hecijgc8jpku3vahv5esq0j@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
You've been told before that mutation isn't the only driving force in
evolution,
Mutations 'coupled with natural selection,' but the theory is
dependent on mutations.
Which is not a problem, except to some few creationists still in denial.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 08:10:06 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns960550E7BCB56fstone69@205.188.138.161...
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
Just reject the hoax now and accept the truth.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 10:10:49 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:380sq0F5go61aU1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960550E7BCB56fstone69@205.188.138.161...
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
Just reject the hoax now and accept the truth.
I did that a long time ago when I rejected creationism and accepted
evolution.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 05:18:10 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:10:06 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns960550E7BCB56fstone69@205.188.138.161...
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
Just reject the hoax now and accept the truth.
The truth of evolution, you mean.
You also didn't get the reference, Andrew. Golden Earring.
Twilight Zone. 1983.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 01:58:20 PM |
|
|
In article <380sq0F5go61aU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns960550E7BCB56fstone69@205.188.138.161...
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
Just reject the hoax now and accept the truth.
Andrew
Sane people do not accept such huge claims of truth without a reasonable
amount of convincing evidence. So far none of that evidence has been
forthcoming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 05:21:23 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D64AE3.12582022022005@[63.218.45.211]...
Sane people do not accept such huge claims of truth without a reasonable
amount of convincing evidence.
This is true and indicative of the decline of sanity in our society through
its accepting the false and unsupportable hypothesis of macroevolution.
Andrew
Macroevolution - one reproducing species vertically changing or
evolving into a different and more advanced reproducing species.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 05:29:43 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D64AE3.12582022022005@[63.218.45.211]...
Sane people do not accept such huge claims of truth without a
reasonable
amount of convincing evidence.
This is true and indicative of the decline of sanity in our society
through
its accepting the false and unsupportable hypothesis of
macroevolution.
Andrew
Macroevolution - one reproducing species vertically changing or
evolving into a different and more advanced reproducing species.
where is your evidence?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 06:13:19 PM |
|
|
In article <381t3kF5k97qdU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D64AE3.12582022022005@[63.218.45.211]...
Sane people do not accept such huge claims of truth without a reasonable
amount of convincing evidence.
This is true and indicative of the decline of sanity in our society through
its accepting the false and unsupportable hypothesis of macroevolution.
Andrew
Macroevolution - one reproducing species vertically changing or
evolving into a different and more advanced reproducing species.
Oh, for heaven's...
What do you mean by "vertical"? And what by "more advanced"?
Much of speciation occurs through genetic drift, and more
occurs through genetic isolation of small populations. If
there's not some huge advantage, or disadvantge, to the
new species, then you've simply got one more animal which
does not mate successfully with any of the ancestral
stock, but only with those more closely related.
There's nothing "more advanced" about this, or even --
if I'm guessing your meaning correctly -- "vertical"
about it.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 06:03:46 PM |
|
|
In article <381t3kF5k97qdU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D64AE3.12582022022005@[63.218.45.211]...
Sane people do not accept such huge claims of truth without a reasonable
amount of convincing evidence.
This is true and indicative of the decline of sanity in our society through
its accepting the false and unsupportable hypothesis of macroevolution.
The decline of sanity that Andrew notes corelates better with the rising
tide on mindless arguments for an intelligent designer.
Andrew
Macroevolution - one reproducing species vertically changing or
evolving into a different and more advanced reproducing species.
Which "direction" does vertical changing move in?
The tendency of evolution is towards more specialized species. To reckon
that that is an advance begs the question hugely, and implies that
humanity is somehow an advance on other species. The existence of Andrew
and his ilk argues the opposite.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 12:14:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:21:23 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D64AE3.12582022022005@[63.218.45.211]...
Sane people do not accept such huge claims of truth without a reasonable
amount of convincing evidence.
This is true and indicative of the decline of sanity in our society through
its accepting the false and unsupportable hypothesis of macroevolution.
Religion isn't insanity, Andrew, it's just mental deficiency. There's
a difference.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 09:54:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:21:23 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D64AE3.12582022022005@[63.218.45.211]...
Sane people do not accept such huge claims of truth without a reasonable
amount of convincing evidence.
This is true and indicative of the decline of sanity in our society through
its accepting the false and unsupportable hypothesis of macroevolution.
Andrew
Macroevolution - one reproducing species vertically changing or
evolving into a different and more advanced reproducing species.
Andrew, if I ever had any doubts that you don't understand the first
thing about evolution, you've just dispelled them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 11:12:18 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:e82k11dril5hecijgc8jpku3vahv5esq0j@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not
add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
You've been told before that mutation isn't the only driving force
in evolution,
Mutations 'coupled with natural selection,' but the theory is
dependent on mutations.
Andrew
yes, mutations that have been directly observed to increase
information. so the problem is non-existent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 01:48:09 PM |
|
|
In article <380edoF5k4mtjU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:e82k11dril5hecijgc8jpku3vahv5esq0j@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
You've been told before that mutation isn't the only driving force in
evolution,
Mutations 'coupled with natural selection,' but the theory is dependent on
mutations.
Actually, any change of information, unless it is to something that has
already existed, does create new information.
Also, though AFAIK there are no established internal mechanisms other
than mutation and natural selection, there is a suggestion of one in the
evidence of the rapid generation of many new species after each of the
great catastrophes such as the one which wiped out the dinosaurs.
I.e., there may be something in DNA which tends to create lots of
mutations in times of high environmental stress for the host organism
but to suppress creation of mutations in times of environmental
stability.
Such a quality would have obvious survival value. In stressful times it
could create a few individuals somewhat better adapted to those stresses
who can reproduce to preserve the line, but in stable times tends to
maintain the species characteristics unchanged.
Such a property, if it exists, would could come into being by natural
selection, as it would give its DNA a better chance of survival and
reproduction in an unpredictable world that DNA without it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 01:58:24 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <380edoF5k4mtjU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:e82k11dril5hecijgc8jpku3vahv5esq0j@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not
add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to
work.
You've been told before that mutation isn't the only driving
force in
evolution,
Mutations 'coupled with natural selection,' but the theory is
dependent on
mutations.
Actually, any change of information, unless it is to something that
has
already existed, does create new information.
Also, though AFAIK there are no established internal mechanisms other
than mutation and natural selection, there is a suggestion of one in
the
evidence of the rapid generation of many new species after each of
the
great catastrophes such as the one which wiped out the dinosaurs.
neutral drift is another such mechanism.
I.e., there may be something in DNA which tends to create lots of
mutations in times of high environmental stress for the host organism
but to suppress creation of mutations in times of environmental
stability.
Such a quality would have obvious survival value. In stressful times
it
could create a few individuals somewhat better adapted to those
stresses
who can reproduce to preserve the line, but in stable times tends to
maintain the species characteristics unchanged.
Such a property, if it exists, would could come into being by natural
selection, as it would give its DNA a better chance of survival and
reproduction in an unpredictable world that DNA without it.
it may be that the rate of mutation remains the same, but during high
environmental stress, the rate of selection is more important.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 05:29:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:04:39 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:e82k11dril5hecijgc8jpku3vahv5esq0j@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
You've been told before that mutation isn't the only driving force in evolution,
Mutations 'coupled with natural selection,' but the theory is dependent on mutations.
You've been told before that mutation isn't the only thing that
changes allele frequencies. (And, no, selection isn't any of the
other things.)
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 09:03:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:16:55 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"snex" wrote in message news:1108958841.444785.78840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
your assertion has been demonstrated false several times with real
examples. to continue making the assertion is dishonest.
Mutations can destroy or rearrange information, but they do not add
*new information* which would be required for the theory to work.
Who says? You alone?
What do you mean by mutation? I have already asked you this but you
declines to answer.
Andrew
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 11:30:02 PM |
|
|
In article <37t41qF5gh0b5U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns9603E19C78F2Bfstone69@205.188.138.161...
The DNA with its "complex code" in fact contains within itself evidence
that it was *not* designed by any higher intelligence, but was evolved
over time through a process of random mutations culled by natural
selection.
That is the idea or hypothesis that you were taught. But it could not
possibly have "evolved" as you said "through a process of random
mutations" because mutations can destroy or rearrange information,
but they can not add 'new' information which would be required for
the theory to work.
And you know this how?
If mutations involve random changes, it is only somewhat unlikely, not
impossible, that a mutation be beneficial, and given enough mutations,
as provided by the immense amount of time involved, the extremely
unlikely in the short term becomes a long term certainty.
So that Andrew's theory of the impossibility of beneficial mutations
falsifies itself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 10:15:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:49:12 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns9603E19C78F2Bfstone69@205.188.138.161...
The DNA with its "complex code" in fact contains within itself evidence
that it was *not* designed by any higher intelligence, but was evolved
over time through a process of random mutations culled by natural
selection.
That is the idea or hypothesis that you were taught. But it could not
possibly have "evolved"
Since it did evolve, it certainly could have. The probability of
something that has happened is 1.0.
as you said "through a process of random
mutations" because mutations can destroy or rearrange information,
but they can not add 'new' information which would be required for
the theory to work.
Which is why mutation is not the only driving force in evolution.
Only you claim it is.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 08:58:47 PM |
|
|
In article <37svmoF5ernlnU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns96036F14AEE2Efstone69@205.188.138.161...
I have no reason to believe that an intelligence was required to "make" DNA.
To accept the premise that the highly complex code as we see in the
DNA molecule came to be without intelligent design, would be either
ignorance of the latest information that we now know about DNA, or
the acceptance of a belief system contrary to evidence and common
sense.
Information technologists tell us that you cannot have a code without
a code-maker.
Do they? Which information technologists have said that?
Also, most of the "highly complex code" in DNA is nonsense, meaning
nothing, and having no biological purpose, so what sort of intelligence
was required to put in all that nonsense?
Therefore the DNA with its complex code that sends
instructions, information and commands to the cell is incontrovertible
evidence that there is a higher intelligence behind the existence of life.
One who is, at best, intermittently intelligent, considering the actual
facts of DNA.
The idea of a sort of absent minded intelligence is the most that can
possibly be expected on the actual evidence.
My own feeling is that it will eventually turn out that the
"intelligence" is totally absent rather than intermittently so.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 10:13:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:35:01 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns96036F14AEE2Efstone69@205.188.138.161...
I have no reason to believe that an intelligence was required to "make" DNA.
To accept the premise that the highly complex code as we see in the
DNA molecule came to be without intelligent design, would be either
ignorance of the latest information that we now know about DNA, or
the acceptance of a belief system contrary to evidence and common
sense.
IOW, proof by ignorance. That's still no reason to accept your
assertion.
Information technologists tell us that you cannot have a code without
a code-maker.
Aeronautical experts used to tell us that the bumble bee couldn't fly.
What experts tell us can be and what is are often at variance.
Therefore
You haven't presented anything that justifies a "therefore".
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 09:03:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:35:01 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns96036F14AEE2Efstone69@205.188.138.161...
I have no reason to believe that an intelligence was required to "make" DNA.
To accept the premise that the highly complex code as we see in the
DNA molecule came to be without intelligent design, would be either
ignorance of the latest information that we now know about DNA, or
the acceptance of a belief system contrary to evidence and common
sense
Wat is wrong with me saying, "I don't know how DNA came about
but see no harm in looking for the answer and theorising
possibilities. Since I have no reason whatsoever to believe there
is a creator, evolution and biogenesis is the best possible way
we know of. This does not believe evolution is the answer just that
it is the best indeed, only, rational explanation we have.
Information technologists tell us that you cannot have a code without
a code-maker. Therefore the DNA with its complex code that sends
instructions, information and commands to the cell is incontrovertible
evidence that there is a higher intelligence behind the existence of life.
Human codemakers started with the simplest of codes, and learned
to evolve better codes. There is no reason to suppose DNA 'spung'
into existence as is, as if some it popped out of some creators hat
from nonwhere, but that takes us out of science and into the realms of
fantasy and magic does it not?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 10:37:41 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so
they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological
creatures
don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you
think it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more complex?
Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already
intelligently
programmed for reproduction and mass production in the DNA, which
is
clear evidence of ID for those who have their eyes opened to see
it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the higher
Intelligence who made it, whom you have chosen to reject. The DNA
could have assembled itself through naturalistic processes as easily
as
a technical computer program could have programmed itself..which is
clearly impossible.
Andrew
computer programs are not made of organic molecules, which form on
their own. DNA is not a computer code, its a molecule that reacts with
other molecules.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 10:10:01 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:29:41 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures
don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more complex? Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already intelligently
programmed for reproduction and mass production in the DNA, which is
clear evidence of ID for those who have their eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the higher
Intelligence who made it,
....which itself was made.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 02:18:01 PM |
|
|
In article <37qeh6F5f8ec9U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
@individual.net> <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com> <375vvcF55mhkiU1@individual.net> <7jgt01pkr5anl8toq937naqru0t077bn7s@4ax.com> <37lfrmF5fgnb9U1@individual.net> <1uqb11lr7cnuosd5nuulk97u32j0f8gscr@4ax.com> <37metkF5dnt2
oU1@individual.net> <Xns96018CC9816D5fstone69….188.138.161> <37nsg7F5g6abeU1@individual.net> <Xns960255C5075E2fstone69….188.138.161>
X-Trace: individual.net YfQ3KhMyWqajklG7ec0HlAQVGzO7jXXA5okRO3OmzdEXhAQJs=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:216167
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69….188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures
don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more complex? Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already intelligently
programmed for reproduction and mass production in the DNA, which is
clear evidence of ID for those who have their eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the higher
Intelligence who made it, whom you have chosen to reject. The DNA
could have assembled itself through naturalistic processes as easily as
a technical computer program could have programmed itself..which is
clearly impossible.
But as I have mentioned at least three times now, useful programs
are in fact generated by randomly changing instructions in existing code,
followed by randomly swapping bits of code back and forth between programs
which still function. The first random zorch is equivalent to
mutation, the successive random swaps between programs mimic sexual
recombination. All that is necessary to evolve programs in this
manner is to have some mechanism which flags "successful" programs
and singles them out for further mutation and recombination.
The blades in the turbines in the engines on the last jetliner
you flew on may have been those desgned by such an evolved program.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 04:10:06 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cvdflp$61l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <37qeh6F5f8ec9U1@individual.net> "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
@individual.net>
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
<375vvcF55mhkiU1@individual.net>
<7jgt01pkr5anl8toq937naqru0t077bn7s@4ax.com>
<37lfrmF5fgnb9U1@individual.net>
<1uqb11lr7cnuosd5nuulk97u32j0f8gscr@4ax.com> <37metkF5dnt2
oU1@individual.net> <Xns96018CC9816D5fstone69..188.138.161>
<37nsg7F5g6abeU1@individual.net> <Xns960255C5075E2fstone69..188.138.161>
X-Trace: individual.net
YfQ3KhMyWqajklG7ec0HlAQVGzO7jXXA5okRO3OmzdEXhAQJs=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:216167
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69..188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction, so
they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological creatures
don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you think
it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more complex?
Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already intelligently
programmed for reproduction and mass production in the DNA, which is
clear evidence of ID for those who have their eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the higher
Intelligence who made it, whom you have chosen to reject. The DNA
could have assembled itself through naturalistic processes as easily as
a technical computer program could have programmed itself..which is
clearly impossible.
But as I have mentioned at least three times now, useful programs
are in fact generated by randomly changing instructions in existing code,
followed by randomly swapping bits of code back and forth between programs
which still function. The first random zorch is equivalent to
mutation, the successive random swaps between programs mimic sexual
recombination. All that is necessary to evolve programs in this
manner is to have some mechanism which flags "successful" programs
and singles them out for further mutation and recombination.
The blades in the turbines in the engines on the last jetliner
you flew on may have been those desgned by such an evolved program.
You guys are totally without reason. The so called random programs you
mention are that way because some intelligent designer planned them to do
exactly that, which means in actuality that they are anything but totally
random. The DNA is exactly the same, programs that modify randomly within
pre set limits of their designer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 06:33:32 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:111kn63s0jct89e@corp.supernews.com:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cvdflp$61l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <37qeh6F5f8ec9U1@individual.net> "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
@individual.net>
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
<375vvcF55mhkiU1@individual.net>
<7jgt01pkr5anl8toq937naqru0t077bn7s@4ax.com>
<37lfrmF5fgnb9U1@individual.net>
<1uqb11lr7cnuosd5nuulk97u32j0f8gscr@4ax.com> <37metkF5dnt2
oU1@individual.net> <Xns96018CC9816D5fstone69..188.138.161>
<37nsg7F5g6abeU1@individual.net>
<Xns960255C5075E2fstone69..188.138.161>
X-Trace: individual.net
YfQ3KhMyWqajklG7ec0HlAQVGzO7jXXA5okRO3OmzdEXhAQJs=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:216167
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69..188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction,
so
they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological
creatures don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you
think
it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more
complex?
Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already
intelligently programmed for reproduction and mass production
in the DNA, which is clear evidence of ID for those who have
their eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the
higher Intelligence who made it, whom you have chosen to reject.
The DNA could have assembled itself through naturalistic processes
as easily as a technical computer program could have programmed
itself..which is clearly impossible.
But as I have mentioned at least three times now, useful programs
are in fact generated by randomly changing instructions in existing
code, followed by randomly swapping bits of code back and forth
between programs which still function. The first random zorch is
equivalent to mutation, the successive random swaps between programs
mimic sexual recombination. All that is necessary to evolve programs
in this manner is to have some mechanism which flags "successful"
programs and singles them out for further mutation and recombination.
The blades in the turbines in the engines on the last jetliner
you flew on may have been those desgned by such an evolved program.
You guys are totally without reason. The so called random programs
you mention are that way because some intelligent designer planned
them to do exactly that, which means in actuality that they are
anything but totally random.
No designer planned for the genetic algorithm to produce the results
that it produces. The only design involved is to simulate the natural
operations of genetics.
The DNA is exactly the same, programs
that modify randomly within pre set limits of their designer.
There are no obvious limits.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 11:33:17 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9604C706C389Afstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:111kn63s0jct89e@corp.supernews.com:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cvdflp$61l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <37qeh6F5f8ec9U1@individual.net> "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
@individual.net>
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
<375vvcF55mhkiU1@individual.net>
<7jgt01pkr5anl8toq937naqru0t077bn7s@4ax.com>
<37lfrmF5fgnb9U1@individual.net>
<1uqb11lr7cnuosd5nuulk97u32j0f8gscr@4ax.com> <37metkF5dnt2
oU1@individual.net> <Xns96018CC9816D5fstone69..188.138.161>
<37nsg7F5g6abeU1@individual.net>
<Xns960255C5075E2fstone69..188.138.161>
X-Trace: individual.net
YfQ3KhMyWqajklG7ec0HlAQVGzO7jXXA5okRO3OmzdEXhAQJs=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:216167
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69..188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular reproduction,
so
they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological
creatures don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if you
think
it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no
designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more
complex?
Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in each
generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result of
intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already
intelligently programmed for reproduction and mass production
in the DNA, which is clear evidence of ID for those who have
their eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the
higher Intelligence who made it, whom you have chosen to reject.
The DNA could have assembled itself through naturalistic processes
as easily as a technical computer program could have programmed
itself..which is clearly impossible.
But as I have mentioned at least three times now, useful programs
are in fact generated by randomly changing instructions in existing
code, followed by randomly swapping bits of code back and forth
between programs which still function. The first random zorch is
equivalent to mutation, the successive random swaps between programs
mimic sexual recombination. All that is necessary to evolve programs
in this manner is to have some mechanism which flags "successful"
programs and singles them out for further mutation and recombination.
The blades in the turbines in the engines on the last jetliner
you flew on may have been those desgned by such an evolved program.
You guys are totally without reason. The so called random programs
you mention are that way because some intelligent designer planned
them to do exactly that, which means in actuality that they are
anything but totally random.
No designer planned for the genetic algorithm to produce the results
that it produces. The only design involved is to simulate the natural
operations of genetics.
The DNA is exactly the same, programs
that modify randomly within pre set limits of their designer.
There are no obvious limits.
An obvious evasion, limits are set into reproductive process of all types of
animals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 07:02:25 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:111lh528pp250e1@corp.supernews.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9604C706C389Afstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:111kn63s0jct89e@corp.supernews.com:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cvdflp$61l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <37qeh6F5f8ec9U1@individual.net> "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
@individual.net>
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005
@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
<375vvcF55mhkiU1@individual.net>
<7jgt01pkr5anl8toq937naqru0t077bn7s@4ax.com>
<37lfrmF5fgnb9U1@individual.net>
<1uqb11lr7cnuosd5nuulk97u32j0f8gscr@4ax.com> <37metkF5dnt2
oU1@individual.net> <Xns96018CC9816D5fstone69..188.138.161>
<37nsg7F5g6abeU1@individual.net>
<Xns960255C5075E2fstone69..188.138.161>
X-Trace: individual.net
YfQ3KhMyWqajklG7ec0HlAQVGzO7jXXA5okRO3OmzdEXhAQJs=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:216167
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960255C5075E2fstone69..188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message:
________ cars aren't capable of cellular
reproduction, so
they
can't "become" anything by themselves. Biological
creatures don't need a factory to produce them.
This in itself is evidence of Intelligent Design..if
you think
it
through!
No, it's completely NOT evidence of intelligent design.
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs
no designer? Or..biological creatures which are far more
complex?
Or,
both? No designer..and you believe that!!!
Automobiles don't reproduce themselves with variations in
each generation. Fred Stone
There are new models which are mass produced as the result
of intelligent planning. Biological creatures are already
intelligently programmed for reproduction and mass
production in the DNA, which is clear evidence of ID for
those who have their eyes opened to see it.
So now the DNA is intelligent?
DNA was preprogrammed to do its part in life functions by the
higher Intelligence who made it, whom you have chosen to reject.
The DNA could have assembled itself through naturalistic
processes as easily as a technical computer program could have
programmed itself..which is clearly impossible.
But as I have mentioned at least three times now, useful programs
are in fact generated by randomly changing instructions in
existing code, followed by randomly swapping bits of code back and
forth between programs which still function. The first random
zorch is equivalent to mutation, the successive random swaps
between programs mimic sexual recombination. All that is
necessary to evolve programs in this manner is to have some
mechanism which flags "successful" programs and singles them out
for further mutation and recombination.
The blades in the turbines in the engines on the last jetliner
you flew on may have been those desgned by such an evolved
program.
You guys are totally without reason. The so called random programs
you mention are that way because some intelligent designer planned
them to do exactly that, which means in actuality that they are
anything but totally random.
No designer planned for the genetic algorithm to produce the results
that it produces. The only design involved is to simulate the natural
operations of genetics.
The DNA is exactly the same, programs
that modify randomly within pre set limits of their designer.
There are no obvious limits.
An obvious evasion, limits are set into reproductive process of all
types of animals.
What limits do exist are not *set into* the process, they are imposed by
the environment.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
