| 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: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
08 Feb 2005 07:13:47 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Tue, 8 Feb 2005 00:52:03 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"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.
Equivocation. Reproduction qua biological vs reproduced qua
copying/manufacturing.
You put forth a hoax just now!
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 |
08 Feb 2005 08:56:18 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:smeh01dra4qiskugt7fq8ds7cgdcd3kp5s@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"johac" wrote:
"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.
Equivocation. Reproduction qua biological vs reproduced qua copying/manufacturing.
But can't you see.... that a cell is far more complex than an automobile. Either
way you look at it they both require an intelligent designer and a manufacturer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
08 Feb 2005 05:37:59 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Tue, 8 Feb 2005 06:56:18 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:smeh01dra4qiskugt7fq8ds7cgdcd3kp5s@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"johac" wrote:
"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.
Equivocation. Reproduction qua biological vs reproduced qua copying/manufacturing.
But can't you see
Can't you see that you equivocated?
.... that a cell is far more complex than an automobile.
Can't you see that god is more complex than a human?
God requires an intelligent designer.
If not, you're a hypocrite.
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 |
09 Feb 2005 07:10:32 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" wrote:
Can't you see that god is more complex than a human?
God requires an intelligent designer.
If not, you're a hypocrite.
Don
If you are human and you acknowledge that God is more (perhaps superabundantly more)
complex than you...then you should acknowledge that the answer to your questions about
Him may very well be far beyond your ability to comprehend.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
09 Feb 2005 09:15:32 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:10:32 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
Can't you see that god is more complex than a human?
God requires an intelligent designer.
If not, you're a hypocrite.
Don
If you are human and you acknowledge that God is more (perhaps superabundantly more)
complex than you...then you should acknowledge that the answer to your questions about
Him may very well be far beyond your ability to comprehend.
So how is it that you know the answers--HYPOCRITE?
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 |
10 Feb 2005 12:38:50 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:10:32 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
Can't you see that god is more complex than a human?
God requires an intelligent designer.
If not, you're a hypocrite.
If you are human and you acknowledge that God is more (perhaps superabundantly more)
complex than you...then you should acknowledge that the answer to your questions about
Him may very well be far beyond your ability to comprehend.
Irrelevant to your logic. Either all complex forms need to be
designed by even more complex forms, or some complex forms don't.
There's no third alternative. Whichever one you pick, one of the legs
of your argument collapses.
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 01:55:10 AM |
|
|
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True, if you remove even the possibility of an intelligent designer
being involved...but true science will not preclude any possibility
in the search for truth.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 07:06:39 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:55:10 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True,
Good. Then you admit that evolution is a fact.
(it's so much fun doing the cretinist-style quote-mining)
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 |
10 Feb 2005 02:20:30 AM |
|
|
In article <370iauF58vlfeU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True, if you remove even the possibility of an intelligent designer
being involved...but true science will not preclude any possibility
in the search for truth.
Andrew
But intelligent design cannot be a theory in science.
Scientific theories require that they be, at least in principle,
falsifiable, by predicting that certain obsevations cannot occur if the
theory is true.
But an intelligent designer could, in principle, design anything, so
that the theory is not falsifiable, and, therefore, not science.
That does not mean that it cannot be true, only that it cannot be
science.
Hence science will not, because it cannot, deal with that hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 11:19:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:55:10 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True, if you remove even the possibility of an intelligent designer
being involved...but true science will not preclude any possibility
in the search for truth.
Science won't even *consider* an intelligent designer until there's
objective evidence of one.
--
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 11:58:10 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:0e4r01tbm7cb9rvgoco3h2qkklhqlrks1p@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True, if you remove even the possibility of an intelligent designer
being involved...but true science will not preclude any possibility
in the search for truth.
Science won't even *consider* an intelligent designer until there's
objective evidence of one.
That's what they say, but the fact is that there's objective evidence all
around us of an intelligent designer. Since they decided not to pursue
that, they promulgated the grand hoax which has deceived the masses.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 12:08:28 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in news:375k7fF5940vpU1
@individual.net:
Science won't even *consider* an intelligent designer until there's
objective evidence of one.
That's what they say, but the fact is that there's objective evidence all
around us of an intelligent designer. Since they decided not to pursue
that, they promulgated the grand hoax which has deceived the masses.
So, what evidence is there of an intelligent designer that does not also
apply to the intelligent designer?
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 12:01:08 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:0e4r01tbm7cb9rvgoco3h2qkklhqlrks1p@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True, if you remove even the possibility of an intelligent
designer
being involved...but true science will not preclude any
possibility
in the search for truth.
Science won't even *consider* an intelligent designer until there's
objective evidence of one.
That's what they say, but the fact is that there's objective evidence
all
around us of an intelligent designer. Since they decided not to
pursue
that, they promulgated the grand hoax which has deceived the masses.
Andrew
really? where is this evidence? why havent you presented it to us? we
have shown you several websites that give perfectly valid evidence of
evolution, and you havent refuted any of it. you are the one who is
failing to supply evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 01:07:05 AM |
|
|
In article <375k7fF5940vpU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:0e4r01tbm7cb9rvgoco3h2qkklhqlrks1p@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True, if you remove even the possibility of an intelligent designer
being involved...but true science will not preclude any possibility
in the search for truth.
Science won't even *consider* an intelligent designer until there's
objective evidence of one.
That's what they say, but the fact is that there's objective evidence all
around us of an intelligent designer.
Such "evidence" is, at best, ambiguous. Some people say that what exists
now could not have come into existence without help, but every day
there are discoveries of things previously thought to be impossible.
One should be very careful about declaring anything to be impossible, as
time has a way of making fools of those who do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 03:56:09 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-72EA18.00070512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
One should be very careful about declaring anything to be impossible, as
time has a way of making fools of those who do.
Perhaps this is what will happen to all who declare the existence of God
to be impossible.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 10:04:38 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-72EA18.00070512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
One should be very careful about declaring anything to be
impossible, as
time has a way of making fools of those who do.
Perhaps this is what will happen to all who declare the existence of
God
to be impossible.
Andrew
andrew you are the one declaring the existence of allah to be
impossible. you are the one declaring certain methods of creation are
impossible. we are not saying anything is impossible, we are giving you
the evidence and drawing conclusions based on it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 02:03:48 PM |
|
|
In article <37625nF5a7jjhU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-72EA18.00070512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
One should be very careful about declaring anything to be impossible, as
time has a way of making fools of those who do.
Perhaps this is what will happen to all who declare the existence of God
to be impossible.
Andrew
Which I have not done.
Perhaps I should have limited my remark to declaring things to be
scientifically impossible.
Though I am strongly of the opinion that there will not ever be any
scientific proof either the existence or non-existence of any gods.
Lets see whether time will make a fool of me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
13 Feb 2005 01:33:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:56:09 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-72EA18.00070512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
One should be very careful about declaring anything to be impossible, as
time has a way of making fools of those who do.
Perhaps this is what will happen to all who declare the existence of God
to be impossible.
After more than 20,000 years? Don't be more childish than you have to
be.
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 09:04:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:58:10 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:0e4r01tbm7cb9rvgoco3h2qkklhqlrks1p@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True, if you remove even the possibility of an intelligent designer
being involved...but true science will not preclude any possibility
in the search for truth.
Science won't even *consider* an intelligent designer until there's
objective evidence of one.
That's what they say
And that's the way it is.
, but the fact is that there's objective evidence all
around us of an intelligent designer.
Nope - that's subjective. Post some objective evidence. First -
learn the difference between objective evidence of a god and "what
else could have created the universe?"
--
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 07:52:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:19:26 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:55:10 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
True, if you remove even the possibility of an intelligent designer
being involved...but true science will not preclude any possibility
in the search for truth.
Science won't even *consider* an intelligent designer until there's
objective evidence of one.
That's what I don't understand - why these morons castigate science
for that. It merely goes where the evidence leads. There is simply
nothing that leads to intelligent design.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 10:59:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:52:54 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
That's what I don't understand - why these morons castigate science
for that. It merely goes where the evidence leads. There is simply
nothing that leads to intelligent design.
Because if there's no intelligent design - no god - then when they
die, they just die. No heaven, no hell even, just nothing. And
believing that would drive them insane, so they HAVE TO believe in an
afterlife - which requires believing in all the rest of the nonsense
that supports the myth. Their only alternative is more insanity and,
probably, suicide.
They're not like sane people, Christopher - they just can't accept a
death that's final. Hey, at least it's a step up from species that
can't understand death at all. Maybe some descendents of theirs will
evolve to the point of being able to accept reality. We did.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
09 Feb 2005 12:47:27 AM |
|
|
In article <36s28jF556beaU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:smeh01dra4qiskugt7fq8ds7cgdcd3kp5s@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"johac" wrote:
"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.
Equivocation. Reproduction qua biological vs reproduced qua
copying/manufacturing.
But can't you see.... that a cell is far more complex than an automobile.
Either
way you look at it they both require an intelligent designer and a
manufacturer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Andrew
Cars cannot reproduce on their own, cells can. They do it all the time.
--
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 |
09 Feb 2005 07:11:12 PM |
|
|
"johac" wrote in message news:jhachm-16B336.22472708022005@news.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"johac" wrote:
"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.
Equivocation. Reproduction qua biological vs reproduced qua
copying/manufacturing.
But can't you see.... that a cell is far more complex than an automobile. Either
way you look at it they both require an intelligent designer and a manufacturer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Andrew
Cars cannot reproduce on their own, cells can. They do it all the time.
--
Doesn't that open your eyes to see that cells are 'far more complex' than cars?
And if automobiles required a planning stage by an intelligence that was higher
than the car itself, then logic should tell you that the same was required for the
much MORE complex structure and physiology of a LIVING cell.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
09 Feb 2005 09:15:54 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:11:12 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"johac" wrote in message news:jhachm-16B336.22472708022005@news.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"johac" wrote:
"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.
Equivocation. Reproduction qua biological vs reproduced qua
copying/manufacturing.
But can't you see.... that a cell is far more complex than an automobile. Either
way you look at it they both require an intelligent designer and a manufacturer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Andrew
Cars cannot reproduce on their own, cells can. They do it all the time.
--
Doesn't that open your eyes to see that cells are 'far more complex' than cars?
And god is far more complex than humans.
So god was created.
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 |
10 Feb 2005 12:21:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:11:12 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"johac" wrote in message news:jhachm-16B336.22472708022005@news.giganews.com...
Cars cannot reproduce on their own, cells can. They do it all the time.
Doesn't that open your eyes to see that cells are 'far more complex' than cars?
And if automobiles required a planning stage by an intelligence that was higher
than the car itself, then logic should tell you that the same was required for the
much MORE complex structure and physiology of a LIVING cell.
Read it again, Andy. "reproduce on their own" ... "cells can". They
don't need something to put them together, they reproduce on their
own. The fact that they DO reproduce on their own is proof that they
don't need an intelligence to put them together.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 02:10:34 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:h8vl011obq7a5lc20hdvv7t46ss1rj9lgv@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"johac" wrote:
Cars cannot reproduce on their own, cells can. They do it all the time.
Doesn't that open your eyes to see that cells are 'far more complex' than cars?
And if automobiles required a planning stage by an intelligence that was higher
than the car itself, then logic should tell you that the same was required for the
much MORE complex structure and physiology of a LIVING cell.
Read it again, Andy. "reproduce on their own" ... "cells can". They
don't need something to put them together, they reproduce on their
own.
Computer viruses "reproduce on their own" ..but they were originally produced
by an intelligence higher then they.
The fact that they DO reproduce on their own is proof that they
don't need an intelligence to put them together.
--
No way! Rather it is proof that they WERE put together.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 07:07:13 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:10:34 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:h8vl011obq7a5lc20hdvv7t46ss1rj9lgv@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"johac" wrote:
Cars cannot reproduce on their own, cells can. They do it all the time.
Doesn't that open your eyes to see that cells are 'far more complex' than cars?
And if automobiles required a planning stage by an intelligence that was higher
than the car itself, then logic should tell you that the same was required for the
much MORE complex structure and physiology of a LIVING cell.
Read it again, Andy. "reproduce on their own" ... "cells can". They
don't need something to put them together, they reproduce on their
own.
Computer viruses "reproduce on their own"
No, they don't.
The fact that they DO reproduce on their own is proof that they
don't need an intelligence to put them together.
--
No way! Rather it is proof that they WERE put together.
Non sequitur.
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 |
10 Feb 2005 02:36:12 AM |
|
|
In article <370j7qF589glmU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:h8vl011obq7a5lc20hdvv7t46ss1rj9lgv@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"johac" wrote:
Cars cannot reproduce on their own, cells can. They do it all the time.
Doesn't that open your eyes to see that cells are 'far more complex' than
cars?
And if automobiles required a planning stage by an intelligence that was
higher
than the car itself, then logic should tell you that the same was required
for the
much MORE complex structure and physiology of a LIVING cell.
Read it again, Andy. "reproduce on their own" ... "cells can". They
don't need something to put them together, they reproduce on their
own.
Computer viruses "reproduce on their own" ..but they were originally produced
by an intelligence higher then they.
Oh?
The fact that they DO reproduce on their own is proof that they
don't need an intelligence to put them together.
--
No way! Rather it is proof that they WERE put together.
In the family of computer programs known as "Game of Life", a random
pattern generator with no intelligence has a very high probability of
accidentally generating self-reproducing patterns.
So why could not random mixtures of naturally occurring chemicals, given
a few billions of years to play around in, have generated
self-replicating chemicals, after which selective reproduction and
mutation, over another billion or so years, produced us?
We are too ignorant of the possibilities at present to rule this
possibility out.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 09:11:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:10:34 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:h8vl011obq7a5lc20hdvv7t46ss1rj9lgv@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"johac" wrote:
Cars cannot reproduce on their own, cells can. They do it all the time.
Doesn't that open your eyes to see that cells are 'far more complex' than cars?
And if automobiles required a planning stage by an intelligence that was higher
than the car itself, then logic should tell you that the same was required for the
much MORE complex structure and physiology of a LIVING cell.
Read it again, Andy. "reproduce on their own" ... "cells can". They
don't need something to put them together, they reproduce on their
own.
Computer viruses "reproduce on their own"
Fallacy of equivocation.
The fact that they DO reproduce on their own is proof that they
don't need an intelligence to put them together.
No way! Rather it is proof that they WERE put together.
How? Because nothing can reproduce on its own if it wasn't put
together? That's your assertion, but you have no evidence to back it
up, so it's JUST your assertion.
--
"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)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MsAnthrope" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 08:44:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:10:34 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
Computer viruses "reproduce on their own" ..but they were originally produced
by an intelligence higher then they.
CDs by Britney Spears are multiplying all over the place, but she's
dumber than the box they come in.
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
