| 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: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
08 Feb 2005 10:53:52 AM |
|
|
In article <36rcihF55ol48U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:roSdna9CpLWpp5XfRVn-og@giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
{...}
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from the
cell itself.
Not true. It is thought that mitochondria, for example, were once
free-living.
"It is thought"...of course "It is thought"...for it is part of the structure of the
grand Hoax.
The reason my statement is declared to be "not true" is because.."It is thought."
All right then, more properly: given the fact that mitochondria
reproduce by themselves apart from the reproduction of the larger
cell itself, given the fact that the mitochondria have their
own separate genetic material; given the fact that mitochondria have
a slightly different version of the very genetic code itself; given
the fact that mitochondria bear considerable resemblence
to known aeorobic bacteria, given the fact that it there
has been at least one observed case of bacteria invading
a species of amoeba, followed by the evolution of
a symbiotic relationship in which at the amoeba
became dependent on this endo-symbiote to provide some
biochemistry which the amoeba formerly carried out on
its own, precisely as "is thought" to have happened long
ago with mitochondria (and chloroplasts) -- given all
these observations, then how about this formulation:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
You will note that I am not a biologist, and that the above
is just off the top of my head. If you'd like more evidence,
or more elaboration on what I wrote above, try an actual
book by an actual biologist. Lynn Margulis' "Microcosmos"
would be a good start.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
09 Feb 2005 07:10:56 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuaqr0$oel$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 10:51:00 AM |
|
|
In article <36vqkvF58upbnU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuaqr0$oel$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 10:44:07 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug3dk$6qk$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
-- cary
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 07:10:50 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:44:07 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug3dk$6qk$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
Thus showing that you know naught of which you speak
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 |
11 Feb 2005 11:41:05 AM |
|
|
In article <372rgmF590b2rU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug3dk$6qk$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
I beg your pardon?...
The vast vast VAST majority of all cells in the world are single
cells, and not part of larger organisms.
(in fact, 90% -- and I mean that figure literally, 90% -- of
all the cells within the confines of your body are single
cells, and not a part of "you")
You might want to take a look at the current "tree of life".
There are three major kingdoms -- the archaea, the bacteria,
and the eukaryontes. And within the eukaryotes, way way
WAY out on a small spray of twigs at the end of some small
branches at the end of some slightly larger branches growing
from some eariler branches ... are all plants and animals.
Everything that you probably think of as "life", all the
plants and animals are merely one set of twigs among
an incredible diversity of other many many many other
terminal sprays of twigs.
And most, though not all, of those are single-celled.
Archaea and bacteria live EVERYWHERE. They live brine so
concentrated it never freezes, even in Antactia. They live in
the heavily irradiated cooling water of nuclear reactors.
They live in deserts which have not seen rain in decades.
They live in solid rock miles below the surface of the
earth. They live in water well above boiling under
tons of pressure on the ocean floor. They live in
ice. They live in caves more acidic than the acid
in your car battery -- in fact, they SECRETE that
acid.
Multi-celled organisms are not where nearly all the life
on earth "does its thing". Metazoans, such as myself
and my cats, are a tiny smear of life on a huge tapestry
of life, almost all of which is not multi-celluar.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 09:21:59 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuiqnh$2iu$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
I beg your pardon?...
What do you say was the *medium* whereby mitochondria "supposedly
MAY have"arose from this endo-symbiotic relationship between aerobic
bacterium and an eukaryotic cell? and I assume you meant a prokaryote
cell.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 09:30:51 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cuiqnh$2iu$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only
within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be
composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
I beg your pardon?...
What do you say was the *medium* whereby mitochondria "supposedly
MAY have"arose from this endo-symbiotic relationship between aerobic
bacterium and an eukaryotic cell? and I assume you meant a
prokaryote
cell.
Andrew
the medium was the primitive cell itself. a primitive mitochondria,
which may have even been a parasite, attacked a cell. the cell evolved
resistance to the attacker. the mitochondria in turn responded by
evolving to better live in the cell. eventually they came to an
equilibrium where each was dependent on the other for survival.
think its impossible? human DNA contains endogenous retroviruses.
strangely enough, the presence of these retroviruses is not unique to
humans, and it forms the very same nested heirarchy as both
morphological and genetic studies. weird isnt it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
14 Feb 2005 11:04:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1108179051.296457.141630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "snex" <snex@comcast.net> writes:
Andrew wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cuiqnh$2iu$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only
within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be
composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
I beg your pardon?...
What do you say was the *medium* whereby mitochondria "supposedly
MAY have"arose from this endo-symbiotic relationship between aerobic
bacterium and an eukaryotic cell? and I assume you meant a
prokaryote
cell.
Andrew
the medium was the primitive cell itself. a primitive mitochondria,
which may have even been a parasite, attacked a cell. the cell evolved
resistance to the attacker. the mitochondria in turn responded by
evolving to better live in the cell. eventually they came to an
equilibrium where each was dependent on the other for survival.
And this exact scenario has been observed in the lab. Not bacteria
which became mitochondria, of course, but bacteria which invaded
a species of amoeba, were tolerated, and eventually participated
in a mutual divvying up of some biochemical chores.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
14 Feb 2005 11:02:18 AM |
|
|
In article <375b2jF58lmuqU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuiqnh$2iu$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
I beg your pardon?...
What do you say was the *medium* whereby mitochondria "supposedly
MAY have"arose from this endo-symbiotic relationship between aerobic
bacterium and an eukaryotic cell? and I assume you meant a prokaryote
cell.
The "medium"? I'm not sure I understand. As I said in another
post, bacteria and archaea live just about everywhere.
But my incredulity was not about the "primordial soup" bit, but
about your idea that metazooans are "where cells live and do
their thing". In fact, multi-celled animals are a tiny outlier
in the domain of living cells, most of which are single-celled
species.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 11:55:28 PM |
|
|
In article <372rgmF590b2rU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug3dk$6qk$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
And how many species of single celled organisms are known still to exist
today? According to your statement above there should be few or none.
But I seem to recall hearing about the discovery of new one celled
organisms all the time in environments that were previously thought to
be too extreme to support life, and in places where no forms of complex
multi-celled organisms exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 08:36:36 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-9988FB.22552810022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
And how many species of single celled organisms are known still to exist
today? According to your statement above there should be few or none.
But I seem to recall hearing about the discovery of new one celled
organisms all the time in environments that were previously thought to
be too extreme to support life, and in places where no forms of complex
multi-celled organisms exist.
Like near the deep underwater thermal vents.. but you assume it was sterile to begin with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 09:17:41 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-9988FB.22552810022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only
within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be
composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why?
Because that is where cells live and do their thing - within
complex multi-celled organisms, not in primordial soups.
And how many species of single celled organisms are known still to
exist
today? According to your statement above there should be few or
none.
But I seem to recall hearing about the discovery of new one celled
organisms all the time in environments that were previously thought
to
be too extreme to support life, and in places where no forms of
complex
multi-celled organisms exist.
Like near the deep underwater thermal vents.. but you assume it was
sterile to begin with.
now you are saying life always existed? great, then theres no longer
any need for your god!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 12:35:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:10:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuaqr0$oel$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why are you studying biology, Andy? For the sole purpose of
"disproving" evolution?
You know the words, but you don't understand the field.
--
"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)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 02:53:40 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:o30m01d2i7qmm0a3ua2h8ld6tj0bclp83o@4ax.com...
"Andrew"said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why are you studying biology, Andy? For the sole purpose of
"disproving" evolution?
You know the words, but you don't understand the field.
--
I know enough to see that there has been a grand Hoax.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 07:05:52 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:53:40 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:o30m01d2i7qmm0a3ua2h8ld6tj0bclp83o@4ax.com...
"Andrew"said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why are you studying biology, Andy? For the sole purpose of
"disproving" evolution?
You know the words, but you don't understand the field.
--
I know enough to see that there has been a grand Hoax.
....the Hoax that there is a god.
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 |
10 Feb 2005 11:07:51 AM |
|
|
In article <370lokF583fgrU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:o30m01d2i7qmm0a3ua2h8ld6tj0bclp83o@4ax.com...
"Andrew"said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why are you studying biology, Andy? For the sole purpose of
"disproving" evolution?
You know the words, but you don't understand the field.
--
I know enough to see that there has been a grand Hoax.
Well, let's pause in our biological debate and consider this
from the conspiracy-theory point of view then.
I doubt that one in a hundred practicing taxonomist, embryologist,
population biologist, geologist, paleontologist, geochemist,
geneticist, developmental biologist, or ecologist doubts
the theory of evolution.
So who do you think originally organized this grand hoax,
and more importantly: how can any hoax stay hidden when,
as seen in the preceeding paragraph, there are hundreds
of thousands of conspirators involved?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 10:36:37 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug4d7$992$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Well, let's pause in our biological debate and consider this
from the conspiracy-theory point of view then.
I doubt that one in a hundred practicing taxonomist, embryologist,
population biologist, geologist, paleontologist, geochemist,
geneticist, developmental biologist, or ecologist doubts
the theory of evolution.
This is very sad.
So who do you think originally organized this grand hoax,
Probably a collective "group think."
and more importantly: how can any hoax stay hidden when,
as seen in the preceeding paragraph, there are hundreds
of thousands of conspirators involved?
I believe it is now being exposed and many peoples eyes are
being opened to the truth.
-- cary
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 11:23:41 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cug4d7$992$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Well, let's pause in our biological debate and consider this
from the conspiracy-theory point of view then.
I doubt that one in a hundred practicing taxonomist, embryologist,
population biologist, geologist, paleontologist, geochemist,
geneticist, developmental biologist, or ecologist doubts
the theory of evolution.
This is very sad.
So who do you think originally organized this grand hoax,
Probably a collective "group think."
and more importantly: how can any hoax stay hidden when,
as seen in the preceeding paragraph, there are hundreds
of thousands of conspirators involved?
I believe it is now being exposed and many peoples eyes are
being opened to the truth.
-- cary
Andrew
talk about improbabilities! andrew maintains that there is a vast
conspiracy amongst almost all the scientists in the world to maintain
seemingly arbitrary ideas that oppose the bible. why did they pick 4.5
billion years for the age of the earth andrew? why not some other age?
why did they pick 2 million years for the age of humans andrew? why not
some other age? if its a conspiracy, these numbers were chosen at
random, and it would be impossible for the whole community to maintain
them.
the odds of a complete scientific conspitacy completely dwarf even the
fallcious odds that creationists give of a cell forming at random!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 11:58:03 PM |
|
|
On 10 Feb 2005 21:23:41 -0800, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in
alt.atheism:
the odds of a complete scientific conspitacy completely dwarf even the
fallcious odds that creationists give of a cell forming at random!
The odds of such a conspiracy being even slightly possible dwarf the
odds that the Christian god is real.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 07:10:21 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:36:37 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug4d7$992$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Well, let's pause in our biological debate and consider this
from the conspiracy-theory point of view then.
I doubt that one in a hundred practicing taxonomist, embryologist,
population biologist, geologist, paleontologist, geochemist,
geneticist, developmental biologist, or ecologist doubts
the theory of evolution.
This is very sad.
Why? Because they no longer believe your HOAX?
So who do you think originally organized this grand hoax,
Probably a collective "group think."
Nah. They just grew up.
and more importantly: how can any hoax stay hidden when,
as seen in the preceeding paragraph, there are hundreds
of thousands of conspirators involved?
I believe it is now being exposed and many peoples eyes are
being opened to the truth.
Yes--the truth that god is a HOAX.
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 |
11 Feb 2005 11:28:34 AM |
|
|
In article <372r2jF57g6goU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug4d7$992$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Well, let's pause in our biological debate and consider this
from the conspiracy-theory point of view then.
I doubt that one in a hundred practicing taxonomist, embryologist,
population biologist, geologist, paleontologist, geochemist,
geneticist, developmental biologist, or ecologist doubts
the theory of evolution.
This is very sad.
I suppose. But only if you also think it's sad that all geologists
know why the world is very, very old, and all cosmologists
understand that the universe is unimaginably vast, with
us at some unremarkable point in it.
So who do you think originally organized this grand hoax,
Probably a collective "group think."
Oh, now this is interesting. What group might this be?
Do you think that they all sat down together with the expressed
intent of undermining Genesis, of that they just kind of got
silly together all at once but then said "Hey, you know?
This is so crazy it might just be true"? Or what?
In any event, please tell me the Illuminati were not involved.
and more importantly: how can any hoax stay hidden when,
as seen in the preceeding paragraph, there are hundreds
of thousands of conspirators involved?
I believe it is now being exposed and many peoples eyes are
being opened to the truth.
Very interesting indeed.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 09:53:31 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <372r2jF57g6goU1@individual.net> "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cug4d7$992$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
[...]
and more importantly: how can any hoax stay hidden when,
as seen in the preceeding paragraph, there are hundreds
of thousands of conspirators involved?
I believe it is now being exposed and many peoples eyes are
being opened to the truth.
"This claim has been made constantly since even before
Darwin. In all that time, the theory of evolution has only
gotten stronger. Prior to the development of evolutionary
theory, almost 100 percent of relevant scientists were
creationists. Now the number is far less than 1 percent.
The numbers continue to drop as the body of evidence
supporting evolutionary theory continues to build."
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
Very interesting indeed.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 11:42:24 PM |
|
|
In article <372r2jF57g6goU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug4d7$992$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Well, let's pause in our biological debate and consider this
from the conspiracy-theory point of view then.
I doubt that one in a hundred practicing taxonomist, embryologist,
population biologist, geologist, paleontologist, geochemist,
geneticist, developmental biologist, or ecologist doubts
the theory of evolution.
This is very sad.
So who do you think originally organized this grand hoax,
Probably a collective "group think."
and more importantly: how can any hoax stay hidden when,
as seen in the preceeding paragraph, there are hundreds
of thousands of conspirators involved?
I believe it is now being exposed and many peoples eyes are
being opened to the truth.
And, like the Red Queen, do you practice believing 10 impossible things
before breakfast?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 11:57:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:36:37 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug4d7$992$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
and more importantly: how can any hoax stay hidden when,
as seen in the preceeding paragraph, there are hundreds
of thousands of conspirators involved?
I believe it is now being exposed
There's a difference between "being exposed" and a lot of creationists
demanding that the bible be taught in public schools. So far the only
"evidence" presented in favor of creationism is that life is too
complex to have come about by random processes - which has nothing to
do with creationism (or, for that matter, evolution).
And this is ONLY happening in one of the most scientifically backward
nations on Earth - the United States. People in scientifically
advanced countries are laughing at your attempts to equate the bible
with anything even resembling reality. Even the common man in the
street in most countries realizes how far we've fallen.
--
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures
or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither
can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives
its physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eter-
nity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the exist-
ing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature.
- Albert Einstein, as quoted in _Billions and Billions_, Carl Sagan.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 09:09:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:53:40 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:o30m01d2i7qmm0a3ua2h8ld6tj0bclp83o@4ax.com...
"Andrew"said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"There is considerable reason to think that mitochondria
arose from an endo-symbiotic relationship between an
aeorbic bacterium and an eukaryotic cell"
I can see the framework of your hypothesis functioning only within an
actual living organism which itself would necessarily be composed of
eukaryotic cells metabolizing with its mitochondria.
Why are you studying biology, Andy? For the sole purpose of
"disproving" evolution?
You know the words, but you don't understand the field.
I know enough to see that there has been a grand Hoax.
You prove that you know nothing about biological evolution with almost
every post. Your claims and your posts are at odds.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 02:47:07 PM |
|
|
In article <36q16uF52cmruU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8glc$fue$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
{...}
OK, here comes a new theory! Which is fine if you don't bend the laws of
science to make it 'fit'..for then you would be promulgating the hoax which
has deceived the general populace.
Some think from "fossil evidence" that automobiles arose in the latter
half of the 19th century. Obviously however, this must be a hoax, since
automobiles require gasoline engines, hydraulic brakes, variable-speed
transmissions, safety glass, controlling computers, and rubber tires.
Since not one of these items was around when these first automobiles
are claimed to have arisen, obviously this must be a hoax.
There are "basic parts" required for a simple automobile to function as
there are for any cell to function;
Yes there are. But my point with this imperfect metaphor is that
most of what is critical to today's automobile did not have to
be available to build early automobiles. Much of the complexity
of the current eukaryotic cell is not necessary to have some kind
of cell.
But again: why do you think the first life had to be celluar in
nature?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 02:43:35 PM |
|
|
In article <36q16uF52cmruU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8glc$fue$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of its parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from the cell itself.
Untrue, and also irrelevant:
1) Untrue: several parts of the present day cell: the mitochnodria, the
chloroplastm and possibly the cilia -- appear to have been
free-living organisms which formed a symbiotic relationship with
early cells which lacked these structures, a partnership which became permanent
over a long period of time. Thus we have two, possibly three,
examples of organelles within the cell which originally arose
for reasons unrelated to their present function within the cell.
and:
2) Irrelevant: as no one thinks that early cells had to contain all of their
present sophistication, I don't see why your statement that organelles
have no purpose or function apart from the cell, even if it were
true, has any significance for this discussion?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
08 Feb 2005 01:41:44 AM |
|
|
In article <36q16uF52cmruU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8glc$fue$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis
on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few
amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized
functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer
code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who
made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you propose
that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~
develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of its
parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from the cell
itself.
Why do you think the first life forms had to be cellular in nature?
OK, here comes a new theory! Which is fine if you don't bend the laws of
science to make it 'fit'..for then you would be promulgating the hoax which
has deceived the general populace.
Some think from "fossil evidence" that automobiles arose in the latter
half of the 19th century. Obviously however, this must be a hoax, since
automobiles require gasoline engines, hydraulic brakes, variable-speed
transmissions, safety glass, controlling computers, and rubber tires.
Since not one of these items was around when these first automobiles
are claimed to have arisen, obviously this must be a hoax.
There are "basic parts" required for a simple automobile to function as
there are for any cell to function; but a cell is for more complex that any
automobile. Both require an intelligent designer and manufacturer.
Your comparison is invalid! An automobile is not a biological entity, it
cannot reproduce therefore it cannot evolve.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
08 Feb 2005 02:52:03 AM |
|
|
"johac" wrote in message news:jhachm-E9028D.23414407022005@news.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
There are "basic parts" required for a simple automobile to function as
there are for any cell to function; but a cell is for more complex that any
automobile. Both require an intelligent designer and manufacturer.
Your comparison is invalid! An automobile is not a biological entity, it
cannot reproduce therefore it cannot evolve.
--
They are reproduced all the time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
