| 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: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 11:14:50 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960552621512Afstone69@205.188.138.161...
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply of the
right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed to
have occurred.
It's better to have one's worldview based on solid truth rather than
on an absurd hoax.
Andrew
pluto has never been observed to orbit the sun. do you believe it does?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 02:03:39 PM |
|
|
In article <380teiF5jvct4U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:Xns960552621512Afstone69@205.188.138.161...
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply of the right
kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed to have
occurred.
Nobody could have been there to observe it. We run into the sam problem
with the origin of the sun and our solar system, that we do not have any
direct observation of what happened.
It's better to have one's worldview based on solid truth rather than on an
absurd hoax.
The only issue is which is which. I prefer to wait for the presentation
of logically convincing evidence one way or the other before deciding.
Andrew does not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 12:11:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:21:04 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns960552621512Afstone69@205.188.138.161...
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply of the right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed to have occurred.
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed
that your god created anything.
It's better to have one's worldview based on solid truth rather than on an absurd hoax.
Like the hoax of a god.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 04:18:48 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" wrote in message news:421ba810$0$183$16895aa@news.airnews.net...
Andrew wrote:
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its environment internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they try to tell you
otherwise.
Uhmmm, no. Are viruses alive? yet they reproduce and mutate.
Not without preexisting life they don't.
There were no doubt in early days of earth, complex things
that were not exactly alive. And slowly over a few million years crossed
teh line between what we call alive and not alive.
"No doubt" uh?
There is no reason to dowbt this..
Of course not. If you want to believe the hoax, you would never dare raise a
question that would embarrass those who are religiously promoting the hoax.
numerous pseudo-life phenomenon
are known to science, such as various fatty substances that in water,
spontaneously assemple "cells" that ca grow and divide. The obvious basic
start of all successful cell walls of modern day life as we know it.
A *bubble* looks a little like a *cell.* Just get enough bubbles and before
you know it - a real living cell! No doubt, right?
To be a creationsit, you have yto remaion totally ignorant of all that
science knows about.
To become a creationist you cannot mindless chant '"no doubt"' to that which
pseudoscience presents to you, which when closely examined is revealed to be
speculation and hoax.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 04:47:48 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"wbarwell" wrote in message
news:421ba810$0$183$16895aa@news.airnews.net...
Andrew wrote:
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as
metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its
environment internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter
and energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only
from preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if
they try to tell you
otherwise.
Uhmmm, no. Are viruses alive? yet they reproduce and mutate.
Not without preexisting life they don't.
There were no doubt in early days of earth, complex things
that were not exactly alive. And slowly over a few million years
crossed
teh line between what we call alive and not alive.
"No doubt" uh?
There is no reason to dowbt this..
Of course not. If you want to believe the hoax, you would never dare
raise a
question that would embarrass those who are religiously promoting the
hoax.
numerous pseudo-life phenomenon
are known to science, such as various fatty substances that in
water,
spontaneously assemple "cells" that ca grow and divide. The
obvious basic
start of all successful cell walls of modern day life as we know
it.
A *bubble* looks a little like a *cell.* Just get enough bubbles and
before
you know it - a real living cell! No doubt, right?
To be a creationsit, you have yto remaion totally ignorant of all
that
science knows about.
To become a creationist you cannot mindless chant '"no doubt"' to
that which
pseudoscience presents to you, which when closely examined is
revealed to be
speculation and hoax.
Why do you think there is so much evidence available for you to
criticise? The only criticism available to evolutionists is to say that
there is no evidence of itelligent design. Religion has changed their
position many times. They decided that the earth really does revolve
around the sun when it was obvious to all. The creationists illustrate
dinosaurs on noahs ark in their 'museum' now because science forced
them to. Now all they have left to deny are the smaller details. I
wonder what they will do when those are accepted as well...
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 06:16:23 AM |
|
|
"FreeThink" wrote in message news:1109674068.767022.323800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why do you think there is so much evidence available for you to
criticise? The only criticism available to evolutionists is to say that
there is no evidence of itelligent design.
Whereas in the life we see all around us there is evidence of design and
irreducible complexity in living things which means they could not have
partially evolved without all parts functioning together simultaneously.
Religion has changed their position many times. They decided that the
earth really does revolve around the sun when it was obvious to all.
This illustrates that one cannot mindlessly accept what the majority believes.
The creationists illustrate dinosaurs on noahs ark in their 'museum' now
because science forced them to.
For those desirous of the truth, the existence of dinosaurs is not questioned.
Their supposed age and place on the evolutionary tree is what is questioned.
Did you know that we find dino bone that are still fresh and not fossilized?
http://www.saltfactory.com/genesisnetwork/dinosaur_bones.html
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 07:03:42 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"FreeThink" wrote in message
news:1109674068.767022.323800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why do you think there is so much evidence available for you to
criticise? The only criticism available to evolutionists is to say
that
there is no evidence of itelligent design.
Whereas in the life we see all around us there is evidence of design
and
irreducible complexity in living things which means they could not
have
partially evolved without all parts functioning together
simultaneously.
Symbiotic relationships between parts of a living thing could of course
happen during its evolution. The irreducible complexity theory requires
that those dependent functions always existed within those parts which
is just not true.
Marveling at lifes complexity is not an indication of knowing its
origins. It is an indication of a lack of knowledge. This continues
despite being illustrated repeatedly. Science requires religion to move
on to the next mystery after it has been explained. Yet they never want
to be accountable for their last false claim of evidence for theism.
Religion has changed their position many times. They decided that
the
earth really does revolve around the sun when it was obvious to
all.
This illustrates that one cannot mindlessly accept what the majority
believes.
That was my point. Scientists don't rely on what the majority thinks.
They are interested in truth despite how popular the truth may be.
Religion waits until the majority believes because they hesitate. They
wait because they want to look consistent by changing. They wait until
they are forced to change so they do not look foolish by being in the
minority.
The creationists illustrate dinosaurs on noahs ark in their
'museum' now
because science forced them to.
For those desirous of the truth, the existence of dinosaurs is not
questioned.
This is an example of the revisionism I spoke of.
Their supposed age and place on the evolutionary tree is what is
questioned.
Currently being questioned by theists. It is interesting that they do
not question the physics of water displacement required when having
dinosaurs occupy a sea vessel.
Did you know that we find dino bone that are still fresh and not
fossilized?
http://www.saltfactory.com/genesisnetwork/dinosaur_bones.html
Andrew
Yes. I have seen reptiles with bones that are very fresh.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 07:42:54 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"FreeThink" wrote in message news:1109674068.767022.323800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why do you think there is so much evidence available for you to
criticise? The only criticism available to evolutionists is to say that
there is no evidence of itelligent design.
Whereas in the life we see all around us there is evidence of design and
irreducible complexity in living things which means they could not have
partially evolved without all parts functioning together simultaneously.
Except we don't. Nothing in biolofy has been shown to be IC
Religion has changed their position many times. They decided that the
earth really does revolve around the sun when it was obvious to all.
This illustrates that one cannot mindlessly accept what the majority believes.
No, it illustrates that religion is myth and does not stand up to
science when in conflict
The creationists illustrate dinosaurs on noahs ark in their 'museum' now
because science forced them to.
For those desirous of the truth, the existence of dinosaurs is not questioned.
Their supposed age and place on the evolutionary tree is what is questioned.
Did you know that we find dino bone that are still fresh and not fossilized?
http://www.saltfactory.com/genesisnetwork/dinosaur_bones.html
Is there any creationist claim you wouldn't swallow?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 08:59:43 AM |
|
|
"Ash" wrote in message news:d01rgm$8ov$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Andrew wrote:
"FreeThink" wrote:
Why do you think there is so much evidence available for you to
criticise? The only criticism available to evolutionists is to say that
there is no evidence of itelligent design.
Whereas in the life we see all around us there is evidence of design and
irreducible complexity in living things which means they could not have
partially evolved without all parts functioning together simultaneously.
Except we don't. Nothing in biolofy has been shown to be IC
Religion has changed their position many times. They decided that the
earth really does revolve around the sun when it was obvious to all.
This illustrates that one cannot mindlessly accept what the majority believes.
No, it illustrates that religion is myth and does not stand up to
science when in conflict
That's true when comparing false religion with true science. However,
the inverse would be true if comparing false science with true religion.
The creationists illustrate dinosaurs on noahs ark in their 'museum' now
because science forced them to.
For those desirous of the truth, the existence of dinosaurs is not questioned.
Their supposed age and place on the evolutionary tree is what is questioned.
Did you know that we find dino bone that are still fresh and not fossilized?
http://www.saltfactory.com/genesisnetwork/dinosaur_bones.html
Is there any creationist claim you wouldn't swallow?
In northwestern Alaska in 1961 a geologist found a bed of dinosaur bones in
unpermineralized (unfossilized) condition. (See Journal of Paleontology, vol.
61 no. 6, 1986-7, pages 198-200.)
A young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo) who was working with scientists from New-
foundland's Memorial University in 1987 on Bylot Island found part of a lower
jaw of a duckbill dinosaur. It too was in fresh condition.
The journal Science on December 24, 1993 (pages 2020-2023) reported on the
amazing preservation of the bones of a young duckbill dinosaur found in Montana.
These appeared to be fresh bones, not fossilized.
http://www.saltfactory.com/genesisnetwork/dinosaur_bones.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 11:49:13 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Ash" wrote in message news:d01rgm$8ov$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Andrew wrote:
"FreeThink" wrote:
Why do you think there is so much evidence available for you to
criticise? The only criticism available to evolutionists is to say that
there is no evidence of itelligent design.
Whereas in the life we see all around us there is evidence of design and
irreducible complexity in living things which means they could not have
partially evolved without all parts functioning together simultaneously.
Except we don't. Nothing in biolofy has been shown to be IC
Religion has changed their position many times. They decided that the
earth really does revolve around the sun when it was obvious to all.
This illustrates that one cannot mindlessly accept what the majority believes.
No, it illustrates that religion is myth and does not stand up to
science when in conflict
That's true when comparing false religion with true science. However,
the inverse would be true if comparing false science with true religion.
The creationists illustrate dinosaurs on noahs ark in their 'museum' now
because science forced them to.
For those desirous of the truth, the existence of dinosaurs is not questioned.
Their supposed age and place on the evolutionary tree is what is questioned.
Did you know that we find dino bone that are still fresh and not fossilized?
http://www.saltfactory.com/genesisnetwork/dinosaur_bones.html
Is there any creationist claim you wouldn't swallow?
In northwestern Alaska in 1961 a geologist found a bed of dinosaur bones in
unpermineralized (unfossilized) condition. (See Journal of Paleontology, vol.
61 no. 6, 1986-7, pages 198-200.)
A young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo) who was working with scientists from New-
foundland's Memorial University in 1987 on Bylot Island found part of a lower
jaw of a duckbill dinosaur. It too was in fresh condition.
The journal Science on December 24, 1993 (pages 2020-2023) reported on the
amazing preservation of the bones of a young duckbill dinosaur found in Montana.
These appeared to be fresh bones, not fossilized.
http://www.saltfactory.com/genesisnetwork/dinosaur_bones.html
Well, as I have no access to those journals, I don't think I'll be
taking your word for it
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 02:09:16 PM |
|
|
In article <38jeb1F5l337eU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Ash" wrote in message news:d01rgm$8ov$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Andrew wrote:
"FreeThink" wrote:
Why do you think there is so much evidence available for you to
criticise? The only criticism available to evolutionists is to say that
there is no evidence of itelligent design.
Whereas in the life we see all around us there is evidence of design and
irreducible complexity in living things which means they could not have
partially evolved without all parts functioning together simultaneously.
Except we don't. Nothing in biolofy has been shown to be IC
Religion has changed their position many times. They decided that the
earth really does revolve around the sun when it was obvious to all.
This illustrates that one cannot mindlessly accept what the majority
believes.
No, it illustrates that religion is myth and does not stand up to
science when in conflict
That's true when comparing false religion with true science. However,
the inverse would be true if comparing false science with true religion.
Now if there were any way of separating false religion from true
religion anywhere near as reliable as the methods for separating false
science from true science...
Each religious believer seems to be absolutely certain that HIS religion
is the only right one, but there is no touchstone that is acceptable to
all believers to separate a valid religion from a spurious one.
In science there is such a touchstone for distinguishing between
acceptable and unacceptable theories.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 02:01:17 PM |
|
|
In article <38j4opF5o50e6U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"FreeThink" wrote in message
news:1109674068.767022.323800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why do you think there is so much evidence available for you to
criticise? The only criticism available to evolutionists is to say that
there is no evidence of itelligent design.
Whereas in the life we see all around us there is evidence of design
But none of intelligence.
Religion has changed their position many times. They decided that the
earth really does revolve around the sun when it was obvious to all.
This illustrates that one cannot mindlessly accept what the majority
believes.
But Andrew would have us mindlessly accepting his "GodDidIt" hypothesis
witout any evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 01:35:22 PM |
|
|
In article <38itsaF5lhe67U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"wbarwell" wrote in message news:421ba810$0$183$16895aa@news.airnews.net...
Andrew wrote:
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as metabolism,
growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its environment
internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and
energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from
preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they try
to tell you
otherwise.
Uhmmm, no. Are viruses alive? yet they reproduce and mutate.
Not without preexisting life they don't.
There were no doubt in early days of earth, complex things
that were not exactly alive. And slowly over a few million years crossed
teh line between what we call alive and not alive.
"No doubt" uh?
There is no reason to dowbt this..
Of course not. If you want to believe the hoax, you would never dare raise a
question that would embarrass those who are religiously promoting the hoax.
The ones who are _religiously_ promoting things are those like Andrew
who are claiming that it is all a hoax because they prefer the
anti-science of "GodDidIt".
numerous pseudo-life phenomenon
are known to science, such as various fatty substances that in water,
spontaneously assemple "cells" that ca grow and divide. The obvious basic
start of all successful cell walls of modern day life as we know it.
A *bubble* looks a little like a *cell.* Just get enough bubbles and before
you know it - a real living cell! No doubt, right?
To be a creationsit, you have yto remaion totally ignorant of all that
science knows about.
To become a creationist you cannot mindless chant '"no doubt"' to that which
pseudoscience presents to you, which when closely examined is revealed to be
speculation and hoax.
To become a creationists, you have to give up science by accepting
hyppotheses that cannot be scientifically tested. Science is limited to
dealing with hypotheses that can be, at least in principle, falsified.
Hypotheses like "GodDidIt" are, therefore, outside of science, and those
who accept them must. to that degree, reject science.
Andrew's position here is that one must reject science whenever it
conflicts with his personal version of the "GodDidIt" hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 11:09:15 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109030633.879968.185870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
now youre telling us that life doesnt consist of matter and energy?
can
you show me a life form that doesnt consist of either?
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as
metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its
environment internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and
energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from
preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they
try to tell you
otherwise.
Andrew
what, other than matter and energy, is involved in these processes?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 09:41:58 AM |
|
|
In article <3807khF5ics3dU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"snex" wrote in message news:1109030633.879968.185870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
now youre telling us that life doesnt consist of matter and energy? can
you show me a life form that doesnt consist of either?
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its environment internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they try to tell you
otherwise.
Why then, if that is true, life has always existed. No abiogenesis,
and no creation either.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 05:40:12 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvfjs6$oud$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"snex" wrote:
now youre telling us that life doesnt consist of matter and energy? can
you show me a life form that doesnt consist of either?
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its environment internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they try to tell you
otherwise.
Why then, if that is true, life has always existed. No abiogenesis,
and no creation either.
-- cary
I believe that is a very good question. But if one doesn't know or understand
the answer, that is no reason to conjecture a falsehood and present it as truth.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 05:42:02 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cvfjs6$oud$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"snex" wrote:
now youre telling us that life doesnt consist of matter and
energy? can
you show me a life form that doesnt consist of either?
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as
metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its
environment internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter
and energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only
from preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if
they try to tell you
otherwise.
Why then, if that is true, life has always existed. No
abiogenesis,
and no creation either.
-- cary
I believe that is a very good question. But if one doesn't know or
understand
the answer, that is no reason to conjecture a falsehood and present
it as truth.
Andrew
then what IS your reason for doing so?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 05:54:41 PM |
|
|
In article <381u6tF5he7hrU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvfjs6$oud$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"snex" wrote:
now youre telling us that life doesnt consist of matter and energy? can
you show me a life form that doesnt consist of either?
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its environment internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they try to tell you
otherwise.
Why then, if that is true, life has always existed. No abiogenesis,
and no creation either.
-- cary
I believe that is a very good question. But if one doesn't know or understand
the answer, that is no reason to conjecture a falsehood and present it as truth.
Right. So: Intelligent Designer <----- grand Hoax.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 06:08:11 PM |
|
|
In article <381u6tF5he7hrU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvfjs6$oud$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"snex" wrote:
now youre telling us that life doesnt consist of matter and energy? can
you show me a life form that doesnt consist of either?
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as metabolism,
growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its environment
internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and
energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from
preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they try
to tell you
otherwise.
Why then, if that is true, life has always existed. No abiogenesis,
and no creation either.
-- cary
I believe that is a very good question. But if one doesn't know or understand
the answer, that is no reason to conjecture a falsehood and present it as
truth.
Conjecturing an intelligent designer without evidence and trying to pass
that off as truth because one does not know what actually happened is a
prime example of what Andrew objects to.
Andrew appears the primrose path of dalliance to tred and reke not his
own rede.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 06:17:34 PM |
|
|
In article <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-7149B7.17081122022005@[63.218.45.211]> Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> writes:
In article <381u6tF5he7hrU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvfjs6$oud$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"snex" wrote:
now youre telling us that life doesnt consist of matter and energy? can
you show me a life form that doesnt consist of either?
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as metabolism,
growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its environment
internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and
energy."'
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from
preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they try
to tell you
otherwise.
Why then, if that is true, life has always existed. No abiogenesis,
and no creation either.
-- cary
I believe that is a very good question. But if one doesn't know or understand
the answer, that is no reason to conjecture a falsehood and present it as
truth.
Conjecturing an intelligent designer without evidence and trying to pass
that off as truth because one does not know what actually happened is a
prime example of what Andrew objects to.
Andrew appears the primrose path of dalliance to tred and reke not his
own rede.
What he said...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 12:11:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:40:12 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
I believe that is a very good question. But if one doesn't know or understand
the answer, that is no reason to conjecture a falsehood and present it as truth.
So why do you continue to conjecture the falsehood of a god and
present it as truth?
--
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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 01:11:25 PM |
|
|
In article <3807khF5ics3dU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109030633.879968.185870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
now youre telling us that life doesnt consist of matter and energy? can
you show me a life form that doesnt consist of either?
Life must have the qualities manifested in functions such as metabolism,
growth,
reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to its environment
internally
and externally; which is somewhat more complex than just '"matter and
energy."'
Matter and energy are necessary. The statement Andrew is criticizing
does not imply that they are sufficient.
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from
preexisting
life. You can tell if someone has been deceived by the hoax if they try to
tell you
otherwise.
Then all the the "unhoaxed" must believe that life has existed forever.
That doesn't leave much for the hypothesized intelligent designer to
design.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 12:10:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:08:48 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
One thing for sure that we know about life is that it comes only from preexisting
life.
So, scenario 1: Your god must be alive to have created life. So he
must have come from existing life.
Scenario 2: Your god didn't come from existing life, so life couldn't
have come from him.
Scenario 3: Oops, there is no third scenario unless you revert to the
fallacy of special pleading, and you wouldn't post a fallacy, would
you, Andrew?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 06:33:02 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:49:07 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvdflp$61l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
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.
Yes, this happens naturally resulting in variation. But where did the
instructions in the existing code come from? ---- Intelligent design.
But where did the intelligent designer come from?
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 08:06:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:33:02 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> said in alt.atheism:
But where did the intelligent designer come from?
Special pleading. But you knew that.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 05:24:00 PM |
|
|
In article <37v6r3F5gl1a0U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvdflp$61l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
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.
Yes, this happens naturally resulting in variation. But where did the
instructions in the existing code come from? ---- Intelligent design.
Well, then, you should be arguing that God set up the overall
system -- the laws of physics (and thus the laws of chemistry).
Because that's the analogy you are making here. I am not arguing
against that, not in this thread, I am trying to demonstrate
to you that your contention that random change and recombination,
followed by selection -- which is what evolution is -- cannot
possibly produce anything viable.
You have been arguing exactly that, and I am offering experimental
proof that your argument has been empirically shown to be wrong.
If you want to move the goalposts -- from evolution not
being capable of producing vaible novelty to something
more along the lines that "the Intelligent Designer
set up the system" -- well, it's a free Usenet. But
you really should acknowledge that this is what
you're doing.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 06:23:15 PM |
|
|
In article <37v6r3F5gl1a0U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvdflp$61l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
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.
Yes, this happens naturally resulting in variation. But where did the
instructions in the existing code come from? ---- Intelligent design.
The original DNA and RNA need not have contained any instructions at
all, provided the environment encouraged their reproduction. As far as
we know, such environments could come into being without intelligent
help.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 08:03:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:49:07 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Yes, this happens naturally resulting in variation. But where did the
instructions in the existing code come from?
There are no instructions for variation in DNA. Variation comes from
many sources, but not one comes from an "instruction".
And you said that you studied evolution. Isn't bearing false witness
a sin?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 02:52:55 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:8l4l11hg9tuk376io6v9fmutntvji6sb7u@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:49:07 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Yes, this happens naturally resulting in variation. But where did the
instructions in the existing code come from?
There are no instructions for variation in DNA. Variation comes from
many sources, but not one comes from an "instruction".
Variation comes by genetic factors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
22 Feb 2005 01:20:15 PM |
|
|
In article <380a79F52km00U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:8l4l11hg9tuk376io6v9fmutntvji6sb7u@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:49:07 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Yes, this happens naturally resulting in variation. But where did the
instructions in the existing code come from?
There are no instructions for variation in DNA. Variation comes from
many sources, but not one comes from an "instruction".
Variation comes by genetic factors.
Which are occasionally modified by mutation. DNA is occasionally
disrupted by chemical insult or radiation or other causes. If such
disruptions are not too detrimental the new can DNA survive and
replicate its host. In the rare event of such a disruption being
beneficial, the new form may replace the older one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
