| 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: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 10:47:44 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-9FCF77.21384718022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
I believe that there is no evidence extant which is is incompatible with
total non-existence of any intelligent designer.
Keep studying with a desire to know the truth.
Andrew
I do, and it keeps me from accepting non-scientific hypotheses such as
Intelligent Design (ID) without much better evidence than is available.
Note that non-scientific does not imply false.
A basic requirement, but by no means the only requirement, for an
hypothesis to be scientific is that it be, at least in principle,
falsifiable. Scientists, and many non-scientists, accept that
requirement of falsifiability as necessary.
But any ID hypothesis can meet any objection by claiming that the
designer designed things that way, so ID is not falsifiable even in
principle.
Thus ID is not a scientific hypothesis. And those who propose it shame
themselves if they attempt to pass it off as scientific.
The truth of such an hypothesis is outside of the capabilities of
science to investigate.
Too bad those teaching the hoax don't apply that to their own theories.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 11:43:09 PM |
|
|
In article <37nundF5e4driU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-9FCF77.21384718022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
I believe that there is no evidence extant which is is incompatible
with
total non-existence of any intelligent designer.
Keep studying with a desire to know the truth.
Andrew
I do, and it keeps me from accepting non-scientific hypotheses such as
Intelligent Design (ID) without much better evidence than is available.
Note that non-scientific does not imply false.
A basic requirement, but by no means the only requirement, for an
hypothesis to be scientific is that it be, at least in principle,
falsifiable. Scientists, and many non-scientists, accept that
requirement of falsifiability as necessary.
But any ID hypothesis can meet any objection by claiming that the
designer designed things that way, so ID is not falsifiable even in
principle.
Thus ID is not a scientific hypothesis. And those who propose it shame
themselves if they attempt to pass it off as scientific.
The truth of such an hypothesis is outside of the capabilities of
science to investigate.
Too bad those teaching the hoax don't apply that to their own theories.
Andrew
What "hoax" are you alleging is so incapable of being falsified, even
in principle, that it is not scientific?
The only ones I am aware of have to do with claims of Gods or
Intelligent designers, or such like.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:41:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:47:44 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-9FCF77.21384718022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
A basic requirement, but by no means the only requirement, for an
hypothesis to be scientific is that it be, at least in principle,
falsifiable. Scientists, and many non-scientists, accept that
requirement of falsifiability as necessary.
[snip]
Too bad those teaching the hoax don't apply that to their own theories.
Evolution is eminently falsifiable (by MANY different means). So far
it hasn't been falsified.
--
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 01:50:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:11:52 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:1uqb11lr7cnuosd5nuulk97u32j0f8gscr@4ax.com...
"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?
Complexity has nothing to do with it. Snowflakes are more complex
than paper airplanes - snowflakes don't need design, paper airplanes
do.
--
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: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 10:09:55 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:6nhc11po1hkcrdg1112ubjv19lrhquocva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"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?
Complexity has nothing to do with it. Snowflakes are more complex
than paper airplanes - snowflakes don't need design, paper airplanes
do.
Do you mean to say, "Snowflakes don't need a designer. Their complexity
of design is the result of natural forces."?? OK, but there is a big difference
between the complexity of a crystal or snowflake and the complexity of the
intelligence and instructions that are in the DNA code, which is comparable
to the complexity of all the books in a technical library......correctly spelled.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 08:40:35 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:09:55 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:6nhc11po1hkcrdg1112ubjv19lrhquocva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"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?
Complexity has nothing to do with it. Snowflakes are more complex
than paper airplanes - snowflakes don't need design, paper airplanes
do.
Do you mean to say, "Snowflakes don't need a designer.
Do you mean to say "the designer of humans doesn't need a
designer"?
The complexity of the designer of humans requires a designer for
it.
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 |
18 Feb 2005 10:19:42 PM |
|
|
In article <37nsgeF5gcltrU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:6nhc11po1hkcrdg1112ubjv19lrhquocva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"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?
Complexity has nothing to do with it. Snowflakes are more complex
than paper airplanes - snowflakes don't need design, paper airplanes
do.
Do you mean to say, "Snowflakes don't need a designer. Their complexity
of design is the result of natural forces."?? OK, but there is a big
difference
between the complexity of a crystal or snowflake and the complexity of the
intelligence and instructions that are in the DNA code, which is comparable
to the complexity of all the books in a technical library......correctly
spelled.
Firstly, describing the activities that DNA can accomplish as
intelligence and instructions begs the question.
Secondly, there is a good deal of evidence that misspellings occur with
high enough frequency to cast doubt on the intelligence of the speller.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 06:51:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:09:55 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:6nhc11po1hkcrdg1112ubjv19lrhquocva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
So, you think that the manufacture of automobiles needs no designer?
Or..biological creatures which are far more complex?
Complexity has nothing to do with it. Snowflakes are more complex
than paper airplanes - snowflakes don't need design, paper airplanes
do.
Do you mean to say, "Snowflakes don't need a designer. Their complexity
of design is the result of natural forces."?
No, it's the result of the properties of water.
OK, but there is a big difference
between the complexity of a crystal or snowflake and the complexity of the
intelligence and instructions that are in the DNA code
Only in degree, not in kind, as relates to this discussion.
, which is comparable
to the complexity of all the books in a technical library......correctly spelled.
No, it's equivalent to a million monkeys pounding on a million
typewriters. It would only be equivalent to all the books correctly
spelled if 4 billion years of evolution was aimed at creating human
beings - which it wasn't.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-20
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 12:46:46 AM |
|
|
In article <37lfrmF5fgnb9U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:7jgt01pkr5anl8toq937naqru0t077bn7s@4ax.com...
________ 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!
Why would an intelligent designer have given us a vermiform appendix?
This is only one of billions of possible unanswerable questions about
the alleged intelligence of a intelligent designer.
The sum total of which would allow the designer damn all intelligence.
Now a designer who worked by trial and error,...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 03:29:06 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8D3D3D.23464617022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
________ 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!
Why would an intelligent designer have given us a vermiform appendix?
I don't know, but He did pretty good with the rest of me so I think I'll keep it.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 04:00:51 PM |
|
|
In article <37lqrbF5daplhU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8D3D3D.23464617022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
________ 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!
Why would an intelligent designer have given us a vermiform appendix?
I don't know, but He did pretty good with the rest of me so I think I'll keep
it.
Andrew
How is it that you can be so sure it's a he?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 01:49:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:29:06 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8D3D3D.23464617022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
________ 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!
Why would an intelligent designer have given us a vermiform appendix?
I don't know, but He did pretty good with the rest of me so I think I'll keep it.
Back designed to be used horizontally.
Susceptibility to unrestrained growth that can cause painful death.
Eyes that have the optic nerve attached in a terrible spot, from a
design standpoint.
Eye lenses that crystallize over the years, leading to blindness.
Purge valves in the eyes that are very susceptible to clogging,
causing destruction of vision.
Cholesterol handling system that leads to heart attack and stroke,
among other diseases.
Systems no longer needed (such as diabetes) that lead to debility and
death.
Many, many design defects (too many to list in a usenet post) that
can't be explained by intelligent design (but could be explained if
there were a particularly inept designer), but can easily be explained
if we accept that they just occurred naturally. Systems that don't
cause the population to die off aren't dropped or eliminated, no
matter how much trouble they cause the individual.
--
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: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 01:59:37 PM |
|
|
In article <jchc11pudduqv32naf6r81q2u1k3n5aerf@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:29:06 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8D3D3D.23464617022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
________ 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!
Why would an intelligent designer have given us a vermiform appendix?
I don't know, but He did pretty good with the rest of me so I think I'll keep it.
Back designed to be used horizontally.
Susceptibility to unrestrained growth that can cause painful death.
Eyes that have the optic nerve attached in a terrible spot, from a
design standpoint.
Eye lenses that crystallize over the years, leading to blindness.
Purge valves in the eyes that are very susceptible to clogging,
causing destruction of vision.
Cholesterol handling system that leads to heart attack and stroke,
among other diseases.
Systems no longer needed (such as diabetes) that lead to debility and
death.
Many, many design defects (too many to list in a usenet post) that
can't be explained by intelligent design (but could be explained if
there were a particularly inept designer), but can easily be explained
if we accept that they just occurred naturally. Systems that don't
cause the population to die off aren't dropped or eliminated, no
matter how much trouble they cause the individual.
And since the Designer expended enormous amounts of creativity -- and
still is, for that matter -- in crafting invaders great and small,
equipping them with clever devices tuned to outwit our immune systems,
you do have to ask just what in the world It was thinking at the
time.
Unless, of course, you suspect that the Designer might well be totally
indifferent to us, or to any other species for that matter, and is
just messing about for the sheer pleasure of creating.
I've asked Andrew this question several times now, with variations.
The silence, while soothing, does puzzle me a bit.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 10:35:07 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cv5hf9$eok$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
And since the Designer expended enormous amounts of creativity -- and
still is, for that matter -- in crafting invaders great and small,
equipping them with clever devices tuned to outwit our immune systems,
you do have to ask just what in the world It was thinking at the
time.
Unless, of course, you suspect that the Designer might well be totally
indifferent to us, or to any other species for that matter, and is
just messing about for the sheer pleasure of creating.
I've asked Andrew this question several times now, with variations.
The silence, while soothing, does puzzle me a bit.
-- cary
So now you are beginning to acknowledge there must have been a
Designer and Creator, but are having questions about His creation?
The bible gives the answers to your questions, but folks get uptight
when it is referred to here, and I don't want to offend by quoting it.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 10:43:33 PM |
|
|
In article <37ntvnF5chlj9U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cv5hf9$eok$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
And since the Designer expended enormous amounts of creativity -- and
still is, for that matter -- in crafting invaders great and small,
equipping them with clever devices tuned to outwit our immune systems,
you do have to ask just what in the world It was thinking at the
time.
Unless, of course, you suspect that the Designer might well be totally
indifferent to us, or to any other species for that matter, and is
just messing about for the sheer pleasure of creating.
I've asked Andrew this question several times now, with variations.
The silence, while soothing, does puzzle me a bit.
-- cary
So now you are beginning to acknowledge there must have been a
Designer and Creator, but are having questions about His creation?
The bible gives the answers to your questions, but folks get uptight
when it is referred to here, and I don't want to offend by quoting it.
Andrew
I understand that Christians allege that something or someone they call
the Devil quotes it for his own purposes, so Andrew need not be so shy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:43:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:35:07 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
So now you are beginning to acknowledge there must have been a
Designer and Creator, but are having questions about His creation?
The bible gives the answers to your questions, but folks get uptight
when it is referred to here, and I don't want to offend by quoting it.
Look at the topic, Andrew. "Objective evidence". Quotes from a book
aren't objective evidence. If you actually have some, post it.
--
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: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 05:58:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:35:07 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cv5hf9$eok$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
And since the Designer expended enormous amounts of creativity -- and
still is, for that matter -- in crafting invaders great and small,
equipping them with clever devices tuned to outwit our immune systems,
you do have to ask just what in the world It was thinking at the
time.
Unless, of course, you suspect that the Designer might well be totally
indifferent to us, or to any other species for that matter, and is
just messing about for the sheer pleasure of creating.
I've asked Andrew this question several times now, with variations.
The silence, while soothing, does puzzle me a bit.
-- cary
So now you are beginning to acknowledge there must have been a
Designer and Creator, but are having questions about His creation?
The bible gives the answers to your questions, but folks get uptight
when it is referred to here, and I don't want to offend by quoting it.
That's right, the Bible is worthless as a source as it is just the
unattributed opinions of others and worth no more or less than
your opinion, or mine for that matter. The only value that it has is
as an insight into the minds that conceived and wrote it.
What we seek on this newsgroup is real and tangible evidence
and valid theory based on that evidence. Something that we can
accept as possible or definite without involving irrational belief
where we start to go astray and get lost. I can walk on the
earth not float in the clouds.
This is, of course why we make no assumptions and form no
beliefs concerning how we came about and seek rational
explanations. If we discard the supernatural and belief in
something for which we have absolutely no evidence of
(a creator) then biogenesis followed by evolution is clearly the only
viable explanation and thus far everything thing we have learned
supports this model. There is no reason why we should not
study nature is there and try to learn things from it? I can see
no valid reason why you would object to a study of how
evolution occured. If indeed we were created as is then
our model of the evolutionary process will eventually fall apart
forcing us to look for an alternative explanation. To quote
Conan-Doyle "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever
remains, however improbable must be the truth". Thus if you
want to prove there is a creator you should do you best to
demonstrate that evolution is what happened because when
you have honestly done that and found it unviable you will be
closer to proving creationism is the only answer. But you
must be honest and do your best to prove evolution is true.
There is your true search for a god, not mere belief which is
empty. Of course you are taking a big risk. What happens to
your belief and your religion if we demonstrate biogenesis
in the lab. We have already demonstrated evolution by
selective breeding and from observation of clear fossil
records.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 04:53:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:59:37 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
I've asked Andrew this question several times now, with variations.
The silence, while soothing, does puzzle me a bit.
Andrew's a one-trick-pony:
"Evolution's a hoax"
He also knows some of the words, so he thinks he sounds rational when
he attacks evolution. He should stick to copying/pasting from Luddite
web sites - some of them actually know the field.
--
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: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 10:35:15 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:dcsc11h7lo5k23m8nf3p6cotuugl3d27p3@4ax.com...
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our entire society!
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 10:45:55 PM |
|
|
In article <37ntvvF5im8knU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:dcsc11h7lo5k23m8nf3p6cotuugl3d27p3@4ax.com...
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our entire
society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic religions
have done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 10:55:24 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-2ECB19.21455518022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic religions
have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
18 Feb 2005 11:48:22 PM |
|
|
In article <37nv5oF5g1gdmU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-2ECB19.21455518022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our
entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic religions
have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
Andrew
What 'hoax' is that?
All of the hypotheses I have seen about the beginning and development of
life, other than those requiring intelligent designers, have been
scientific, in the sense that they are, at least in principle,
falsifiable.
To show that they are in any way hoaxes only requires that one falsify
them.
Since you have not been able to falsify any of them, calling them hoaxes
begs the question, which is most improper.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 06:30:40 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7B667F.22482218022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
All of the hypotheses I have seen about the beginning and development of
life, other than those requiring intelligent designers, have been
scientific, in the sense that they are, at least in principle,
falsifiable.
To show that they are in any way hoaxes only requires that one falsify
them.
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable, unrepeatable
and unobserved.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 08:26:11 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:37oprcF5bfoisU1@individual.net:
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being
shown to be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible,
unachievable, unrepeatable and unobserved.
What you wrote is ceryainly true of Christianity. So you'll be giving it
up?
--
Enkidu
Man is a marvelous curiosity … he thinks he is the Creator's pet … he even
believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to
admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to
him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea.
-- Mark Twain
Now playing: Who.Wrote.The.Bible.PDTV - iching.xvid
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 08:29:11 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:37oprcF5bfoisU1@individual.net:
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being
shown to be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible,
unachievable, unrepeatable and unobserved.
What you wrote is ceryainly true of Christianity. So you'll be
giving it
up?
--
Enkidu
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet
.... he even
believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights
to
admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He
prays to
him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea.
-- Mark Twain
Now playing: Who.Wrote.The.Bible.PDTV - iching.xvid
no you see enkidu, christianity being contrary to scientific laws
doesnt count, because andrew says so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 08:20:11 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7B667F.22482218022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
All of the hypotheses I have seen about the beginning and
development of
life, other than those requiring intelligent designers, have been
scientific, in the sense that they are, at least in principle,
falsifiable.
To show that they are in any way hoaxes only requires that one
falsify
them.
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being
shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable,
unrepeatable
and unobserved.
Andrew
then why do all scientists, who coincidentally discovered the laws,
accept it? do you really think youre smarter than people that have
studied this for DECADES? how arrogant of you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 08:39:35 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:30:40 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7B667F.22482218022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
All of the hypotheses I have seen about the beginning and development of
life, other than those requiring intelligent designers, have been
scientific, in the sense that they are, at least in principle,
falsifiable.
To show that they are in any way hoaxes only requires that one falsify
them.
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable, unrepeatable
and unobserved.
Really?
Evidence?
Oh, wait--that's just another of your hoaxes. I get it.
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: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 09:17:20 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:fsje11lfdgdnsgnopfog1sj4aton1l8gva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable, unrepeatable
and unobserved.
Really?
That's right, Don! Microevolution and vertical variation are constantly occurring,
but macroevolution never happened. It is contrary to the laws of true science. It
is unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable and unrepeatable -- it is the hoax which has
warped the direction of our society by the implantation of a world view based on
falsehood.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 09:34:49 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:fsje11lfdgdnsgnopfog1sj4aton1l8gva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by
being shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible,
unachievable, unrepeatable
and unobserved.
Really?
That's right, Don! Microevolution and vertical variation are
constantly occurring,
but macroevolution never happened. It is contrary to the laws of true
science. It
is unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable and unrepeatable -- it is the
hoax which has
warped the direction of our society by the implantation of a world
view based on
falsehood.
Andrew
andrew not only is the alternative you propose against the laws of
science, and for that you embrace it, but you have not demonstrated a
SINGLE thing wrong with evolution.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 03:20:48 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:17:20 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:fsje11lfdgdnsgnopfog1sj4aton1l8gva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable, unrepeatable
and unobserved.
Really?
Evidence?
Oh, wait--that's just another of your hoaxes. I get it.
That's right, Don!
I knew it.
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"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
