| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kurt Nicklas" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2007 04:25:02 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an
embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all
animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
There you go, bubbles. You just blew up your own argument by raising
the same point I was making.
All creationism exploits myths about evolution. For example, many
features evolved in parallel from different basic parts. Mollusks have
eyes that evolved from different eyestalks than vertebrate eyes. So
the idea that all features must be the same, and must have a common
ancestry, under evolution is a myth.
Next, creationism often attempts to play one scientific finding of
evolution against another, disregarding the incredible fallacy of
accepting at least one of the findings. That quotation refers to
evolutionary embryology, where growth patterns in embryos match
evolution. Tetrapod embryos (including humans) have gills that derived
from ancestor fish embryos. So accepting that quotation requires
accepting a major support case for evolution.
So evolutionary embryology also does not reveal parallel paths to the
same general body parts. Mammals and arthropods have different sex
organs. This confirms evolution, because it shows that sexual
reproduction is such a good strategy that our ancestors invented it
several times.
I'm gonna snip the rest before I have too much fun with it!
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
.
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
17 Jun 2007 12:59:58 AM |
|
|
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
The point in common between Evolution and Young Earth Creationism is
something called the "Anthropic Principle". That means the only kind
of universe we could possibly live in is one that miraculously and
inexplicably has the correct conditions to support at least earthly
life. We can never perceive any other kind of universe, so we don't
need to be surprised over mundane miracles, such as an orbital range
from the Sun that leaves water liquid, most of the time.
However, YEC requires that that the Anthropic Principle is a
simulation of a Divine Simulator. So life appears to contain related
species, and Mesopotamia's literate history extends beyond the 6000bp
deadline, because a diety thought about a system that would give us
challenges, and test our faiths.
So what is the difference between the Mind of God concocting all that
history, using living and aware thoughts as its elements, and God
simply running all that history within the same spacetime as we
experience?
The universe is in a constant state of creating itself.
--
Phlip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 12:17:11 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, Kurt Nicklas
<nicklask@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an
embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all
animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
There you go, bubbles. You just blew up your own argument by raising
the same point I was making.
All creationism exploits myths about evolution. For example, many
features evolved in parallel from different basic parts. Mollusks have
eyes that evolved from different eyestalks than vertebrate eyes. So
the idea that all features must be the same, and must have a common
ancestry, under evolution is a myth.
Next, creationism often attempts to play one scientific finding of
evolution against another, disregarding the incredible fallacy of
accepting at least one of the findings. That quotation refers to
evolutionary embryology, where growth patterns in embryos match
evolution. Tetrapod embryos (including humans) have gills that derived
from ancestor fish embryos. So accepting that quotation requires
accepting a major support case for evolution.
So evolutionary embryology also does not reveal parallel paths to the
same general body parts. Mammals and arthropods have different sex
organs. This confirms evolution, because it shows that sexual
reproduction is such a good strategy that our ancestors invented it
several times.
I'm gonna snip the rest before I have too much fun with it!
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
Intellectual honesty.
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: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 12:22:24 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 1:17 pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> let us all know that:
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
Intellectual honesty.
Don, I can be intellectually honest and yet neither know nor care
about
any number of issues that may be important to others.
Next?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:35:45 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1181942702.732538.226100@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps
by which an embryo becomes either a male or female
should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps
vary among animals (e).
There you go, bubbles. You just blew up your own argument
by raising the same point I was making.
All creationism exploits myths about evolution. For example,
many features evolved in parallel from different basic
parts. Mollusks have eyes that evolved from different
eyestalks than vertebrate eyes. So the idea that all
features must be the same, and must have a common ancestry,
under evolution is a myth.
Next, creationism often attempts to play one scientific
finding of evolution against another, disregarding the
incredible fallacy of accepting at least one of the
findings. That quotation refers to evolutionary embryology,
where growth patterns in embryos match evolution. Tetrapod
embryos (including humans) have gills that derived from
ancestor fish embryos. So accepting that quotation requires
accepting a major support case for evolution.
So evolutionary embryology also does not reveal parallel
paths to the same general body parts. Mammals and arthropods
have different sex organs. This confirms evolution, because
it shows that sexual reproduction is such a good strategy
that our ancestors invented it several times.
I'm gonna snip the rest before I have too much fun with it!
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really
make if life evolved over millions of years (which I expect
it did) or if, instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation
event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
The difference would be that research into genetics would be a
waste of time if all life began 6,000 years ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 04:34:00 AM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 9:35 pm, "liberalh...@yahoo.com" <liberalh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:1181942702.732538.226100@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps
by which an embryo becomes either a male or female
should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps
vary among animals (e).
There you go, bubbles. You just blew up your own argument
by raising the same point I was making.
All creationism exploits myths about evolution. For example,
many features evolved in parallel from different basic
parts. Mollusks have eyes that evolved from different
eyestalks than vertebrate eyes. So the idea that all
features must be the same, and must have a common ancestry,
under evolution is a myth.
Next, creationism often attempts to play one scientific
finding of evolution against another, disregarding the
incredible fallacy of accepting at least one of the
findings. That quotation refers to evolutionary embryology,
where growth patterns in embryos match evolution. Tetrapod
embryos (including humans) have gills that derived from
ancestor fish embryos. So accepting that quotation requires
accepting a major support case for evolution.
So evolutionary embryology also does not reveal parallel
paths to the same general body parts. Mammals and arthropods
have different sex organs. This confirms evolution, because
it shows that sexual reproduction is such a good strategy
that our ancestors invented it several times.
I'm gonna snip the rest before I have too much fun with it!
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really
make if life evolved over millions of years (which I expect
it did) or if, instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation
event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
The difference would be that research into genetics would be a
waste of time if all life began 6,000 years ago
What real difference does that make to an individual? That was my
question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 09:57:53 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1181986440.800598.26160@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 15, 9:35 pm, "liberalh...@yahoo.com"
<liberalh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
innews:1181942702.732538.226100@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the
steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or
female should be similar for all animals. Actually,
these steps vary among animals (e).
There you go, bubbles. You just blew up your own
argument by raising the same point I was making.
All creationism exploits myths about evolution. For
example, many features evolved in parallel from different
basic parts. Mollusks have eyes that evolved from
different eyestalks than vertebrate eyes. So the idea
that all features must be the same, and must have a
common ancestry, under evolution is a myth.
Next, creationism often attempts to play one scientific
finding of evolution against another, disregarding the
incredible fallacy of accepting at least one of the
findings. That quotation refers to evolutionary
embryology, where growth patterns in embryos match
evolution. Tetrapod embryos (including humans) have gills
that derived from ancestor fish embryos. So accepting
that quotation requires accepting a major support case
for evolution.
So evolutionary embryology also does not reveal parallel
paths to the same general body parts. Mammals and
arthropods have different sex organs. This confirms
evolution, because it shows that sexual reproduction is
such a good strategy that our ancestors invented it
several times.
I'm gonna snip the rest before I have too much fun with
it!
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it
really make if life evolved over millions of years (which
I expect it did) or if, instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation
event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
The difference would be that research into genetics would be
a waste of time if all life began 6,000 years ago
What real difference does that make to an individual? That
was my question.
Ahhh, you didn't get your internet reputation by accident.
It would mean god exists, that there are no scientific
explanations because a very pathologic god-child was able to
change cause and effect relationships at will. So, if I thought
god was telling me it was his will I kill you and take your
daughters as slaves, I'd probably be right.
Oh, and if I thought god wanted me to build an ark......if you
couldn't tread water for a really long time, you'd be screwed.
It would make a big difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
17 Jun 2007 02:02:27 AM |
|
|
<liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9951E99C764BBliberalhereyahoocom@216.168.3.44...
Kurt Nicklas <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1181986440.800598.26160@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 15, 9:35 pm, "liberalh...@yahoo.com"
<liberalh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
innews:1181942702.732538.226100@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the
steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or
female should be similar for all animals. Actually,
these steps vary among animals (e).
There you go, bubbles. You just blew up your own
argument by raising the same point I was making.
All creationism exploits myths about evolution. For
example, many features evolved in parallel from different
basic parts. Mollusks have eyes that evolved from
different eyestalks than vertebrate eyes. So the idea
that all features must be the same, and must have a
common ancestry, under evolution is a myth.
Next, creationism often attempts to play one scientific
finding of evolution against another, disregarding the
incredible fallacy of accepting at least one of the
findings. That quotation refers to evolutionary
embryology, where growth patterns in embryos match
evolution. Tetrapod embryos (including humans) have gills
that derived from ancestor fish embryos. So accepting
that quotation requires accepting a major support case
for evolution.
So evolutionary embryology also does not reveal parallel
paths to the same general body parts. Mammals and
arthropods have different sex organs. This confirms
evolution, because it shows that sexual reproduction is
such a good strategy that our ancestors invented it
several times.
I'm gonna snip the rest before I have too much fun with
it!
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it
really make if life evolved over millions of years (which
I expect it did) or if, instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation
event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
The difference would be that research into genetics would be
a waste of time if all life began 6,000 years ago
What real difference does that make to an individual? That
was my question.
Ahhh, you didn't get your internet reputation by accident.
It would mean god exists, that there are no scientific
explanations because a very pathologic god-child was able to
change cause and effect relationships at will. So, if I thought
god was telling me it was his will I kill you and take your
daughters as slaves, I'd probably be right.
Oh, and if I thought god wanted me to build an ark......if you
couldn't tread water for a really long time, you'd be screwed.
It would make a big difference.
I wonder if the creationists' god's real name is Trelane.
It's past time for his mommy and daddy god to call him
inside and tell him to stop fooling around with his toys.
To quote Luke Skywalker from the Universe next door,
He's making a mess!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "3513 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 12:28:40 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:35:45 -0000, "liberalhere@yahoo.com"
<liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1181942702.732538.226100@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps
by which an embryo becomes either a male or female
should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps
vary among animals (e).
There you go, bubbles. You just blew up your own argument
by raising the same point I was making.
All creationism exploits myths about evolution. For example,
many features evolved in parallel from different basic
parts. Mollusks have eyes that evolved from different
eyestalks than vertebrate eyes. So the idea that all
features must be the same, and must have a common ancestry,
under evolution is a myth.
Next, creationism often attempts to play one scientific
finding of evolution against another, disregarding the
incredible fallacy of accepting at least one of the
findings. That quotation refers to evolutionary embryology,
where growth patterns in embryos match evolution. Tetrapod
embryos (including humans) have gills that derived from
ancestor fish embryos. So accepting that quotation requires
accepting a major support case for evolution.
So evolutionary embryology also does not reveal parallel
paths to the same general body parts. Mammals and arthropods
have different sex organs. This confirms evolution, because
it shows that sexual reproduction is such a good strategy
that our ancestors invented it several times.
I'm gonna snip the rest before I have too much fun with it!
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really
make if life evolved over millions of years (which I expect
it did) or if, instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation
event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
The difference would be that research into genetics would be a
waste of time if all life began 6,000 years ago.
Breeders would be out of work because there would be no point in
breeding for desirable traits in inalterable lifeforms.
On the plus side, southern white males could stop having to look
outside their own families for wives.
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 08:18:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:28:40 GMT, 3513 Dead
<zepp22113513@finestplanet.com> wrote:
<snip>
On the plus side, southern white males could stop having to look
outside their own families for wives.
Muh Momma tol' me not tuh have nothin' ta do wuth strangers. Iff'n Sis
is good enuff fer Uncle Dad, she's good enuff fer me!
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 03:56:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:28:40 GMT, 3513 Dead
<zepp22113513@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:35:45 -0000, "liberalhere@yahoo.com"
<liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1181942702.732538.226100@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps
by which an embryo becomes either a male or female
should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps
vary among animals (e).
There you go, bubbles. You just blew up your own argument
by raising the same point I was making.
All creationism exploits myths about evolution. For example,
many features evolved in parallel from different basic
parts. Mollusks have eyes that evolved from different
eyestalks than vertebrate eyes. So the idea that all
features must be the same, and must have a common ancestry,
under evolution is a myth.
Next, creationism often attempts to play one scientific
finding of evolution against another, disregarding the
incredible fallacy of accepting at least one of the
findings. That quotation refers to evolutionary embryology,
where growth patterns in embryos match evolution. Tetrapod
embryos (including humans) have gills that derived from
ancestor fish embryos. So accepting that quotation requires
accepting a major support case for evolution.
So evolutionary embryology also does not reveal parallel
paths to the same general body parts. Mammals and arthropods
have different sex organs. This confirms evolution, because
it shows that sexual reproduction is such a good strategy
that our ancestors invented it several times.
I'm gonna snip the rest before I have too much fun with it!
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really
make if life evolved over millions of years (which I expect
it did) or if, instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation
event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
The difference would be that research into genetics would be a
waste of time if all life began 6,000 years ago.
Breeders would be out of work because there would be no point in
breeding for desirable traits in inalterable lifeforms.
On the plus side, southern white males could stop having to look
outside their own families for wives.
I think they stopped that a few generations ago.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 10:28:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:28:40 GMT, 3513 Dead
<zepp22113513@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On the plus side, southern white males could stop having to look
outside their own families for wives.
In order to stop they'd first have to start.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 11:03:51 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:28:40 GMT, 3513 Dead
<zepp22113513@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On the plus side, southern white males could stop having to look
outside their own families for wives.
In order to stop they'd first have to start.
Which leads to the question.
If they move out of state and get a divorce are they still brother and
sister?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
17 Jun 2007 07:23:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:03:51 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:28:40 GMT, 3513 Dead
<zepp22113513@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On the plus side, southern white males could stop having to look
outside their own families for wives.
In order to stop they'd first have to start.
Which leads to the question.
If they move out of state and get a divorce are they still brother and
sister?
Only if he's her father and she's his mother.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
19 Jun 2007 03:12:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nicklask@bellsouth.net> in
<1181942702.732538.226100@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
What is the real difference to your daily life if the Earth orbits the
Sun or the other way around?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
19 Jun 2007 04:52:56 PM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1181942702.732538.226...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
What is the real difference to your daily life if the Earth orbits the
Sun or the other way around?
Exactly!
Do you have an answer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "3528 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
19 Jun 2007 05:28:21 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1181942702.732538.226...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
What is the real difference to your daily life if the Earth orbits the
Sun or the other way around?
Exactly!
Do you have an answer?
Just imagine if everyone thought like that.
We'd still be up in the fucking trees.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
19 Jun 2007 07:23:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:52:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nicklask@bellsouth.net> in
<1182289976.776236.257840@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1181942702.732538.226...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
What is the real difference to your daily life if the Earth orbits the
Sun or the other way around?
Exactly!
Do you have an answer?
My answer is that your question is insignificant. My daily life is not
affected by a cancer cure (unless, of course, I or someone near me,
has cancer). My "daily life" is a meaningless, deliberately
insignificant, standard to judge things.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
19 Jun 2007 09:43:44 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
My answer is that your question is insignificant. My daily life is not
affected by a cancer cure (unless, of course, I or someone near me,
has cancer). My "daily life" is a meaningless, deliberately
insignificant, standard to judge things.
I utterly disagree with that, on metaphysical terms. But I know full well
that whatever explanation I provide won't have any effect on your daily
life...
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 12:03:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:43:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Phlip"
<phlipcpp@yahoo.com> in
<gKydnYdY_ujyCeXbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@adelphia.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
My answer is that your question is insignificant. My daily life is not
affected by a cancer cure (unless, of course, I or someone near me,
has cancer). My "daily life" is a meaningless, deliberately
insignificant, standard to judge things.
I utterly disagree with that, on metaphysical terms. But I know full well
that whatever explanation I provide won't have any effect on your daily
life...
Ah, but in my daily life question of metaphysics are rather common.
You really don't want to get me started on the value of Nominalism to
the modern world. It is something I think about far too often.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 04:08:22 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Ah, but in my daily life question of Metaphysics are rather common.
You really don't want to get me started on the value of Nominalism to
the modern world. It is something I think about far too often.
Extreme apologies for posting the M-word to news:alt.atheism . I shall
endeavor in the future to remain more sensitive to articles of faith.
--
Phlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 05:13:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:08:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Phlip
<phlip2005@gmail.com> in
<1182373702.356325.216040@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Ah, but in my daily life question of Metaphysics are rather common.
You really don't want to get me started on the value of Nominalism to
the modern world. It is something I think about far too often.
Extreme apologies for posting the M-word to news:alt.atheism . I shall
endeavor in the future to remain more sensitive to articles of faith.
Ah, if I only had faith in my metaphysics, I would be a happier man.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 05:30:59 PM |
|
|
In article <vi9j73t4jj8atupv7er3hf8t1aut9fo9u0@
4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein said...
Extreme apologies for posting the M-word to news:alt.atheism . I shall
endeavor in the future to remain more sensitive to articles of faith.
Ah, if I only had faith in my metaphysics, I would be a happier man.
Having faith in his metaphysics makes a person
happier than having metaphyscis in his faith. :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
19 Jun 2007 07:56:13 PM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 8:23 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:52:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1182289976.776236.257...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1181942702.732538.226...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
What is the real difference to your daily life if the Earth orbits the
Sun or the other way around?
Exactly!
Do you have an answer?
My answer is that your question is insignificant.
No, you don't have an answer. Just admit it.
My daily life is not
affected by a cancer cure (unless, of course, I or someone near me,
has cancer). My "daily life" is a meaningless, deliberately
insignificant, standard to judge things.
"Meaningless", "insignificant"........my, you have a very low opinion
of your daily life!
To my way of thinking, it is - in this world,at any rate - the basis
of all standards. If you could rise above your pretences, you'd have
to agree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 12:02:42 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:56:13 -0000, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nicklask@bellsouth.net> in
<1182300973.115515.183600@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 8:23 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:52:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1182289976.776236.257...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1181942702.732538.226...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
What is the real difference to your daily life if the Earth orbits the
Sun or the other way around?
Exactly!
Do you have an answer?
My answer is that your question is insignificant.
No, you don't have an answer. Just admit it.
I am so amused when people tell me what to do like that. I have an
answer to why evolutionary biology is important, but you question was
silly. And I don't have to do lots of work on silly questions.
My daily life is not
affected by a cancer cure (unless, of course, I or someone near me,
has cancer). My "daily life" is a meaningless, deliberately
insignificant, standard to judge things.
"Meaningless", "insignificant"........my, you have a very low opinion
of your daily life!
To my way of thinking, it is - in this world,at any rate - the basis
of all standards. If you could rise above your pretences, you'd have
to agree.
No, I don't have to agree with you. Largely because your "way of
thinking" is wrong.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 05:18:15 AM |
|
|
On Jun 20, 1:02 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:56:13 -0000, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1182300973.115515.183...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 8:23 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:52:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1182289976.776236.257...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1181942702.732538.226...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
What is the real difference to your daily life if the Earth orbits the
Sun or the other way around?
Exactly!
Do you have an answer?
My answer is that your question is insignificant.
No, you don't have an answer. Just admit it.
I am so amused when people tell me what to do like that. I have an
answer to why evolutionary biology is important, but you question was
silly. And I don't have to do lots of work on silly questions.
As I said, you don't have the answer but you do have a rationalization
for
not having it. Thanks for proving my point.
My daily life is not
affected by a cancer cure (unless, of course, I or someone near me,
has cancer). My "daily life" is a meaningless, deliberately
insignificant, standard to judge things.
"Meaningless", "insignificant"........my, you have a very low opinion
of your daily life!
To my way of thinking, it is - in this world,at any rate - the basis
of all standards. If you could rise above your pretences, you'd have
to agree.
No, I don't have to agree with you. Largely because your "way of
thinking" is wrong.
You have no possible basis for saying that other than the hubris of
youth.
Grow up a little, sophomore.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 10:01:07 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 8:23 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:52:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1182289976.776236.257...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Kurt Nicklas
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> in
<1181942702.732538.226...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Here's a fun question for you: What difference does it really make if
life evolved over millions of years (which I expect it did) or if,
instead,
it began only 6 thousands years ago with a single creation event?
What's the real difference to our daily lives?
What is the real difference to your daily life if the Earth orbits the
Sun or the other way around?
Exactly!
Do you have an answer?
My answer is that your question is insignificant. My daily life is not
affected by a cancer cure (unless, of course, I or someone near me,
has cancer). My "daily life" is a meaningless, deliberately
insignificant, standard to judge things.
--
Well said. And there are all sorts of things that fall out of
knowledge. Was the daily life of everyone changed at the time that
bacteria were discovered...no. Does the fall out of that effect the
daily life of a significant portion of the population of the earth
now...yes. It all comes from abandoning myth, and paying attention to
the facts.
What are the possible outcomes of abandoning the myth we were created
and the life forms are modifiable....that's a discovery and line of
though as significant as significant as learning ore can be smelted
into metal.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
