| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Davey" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2004 05:49:49 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Understanding evolution, but still believing creation |
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95CC70DA59F30dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95C9A0A006EADdickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95C9594597687dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
unbound.variable@gmail.com wrote in talk.origins
No. But the existence of the particular God I happen to believe
in is incompatible with life being the result of the evolutionary
process.
Interesting, then your god is telling you that the evidence that
shows in his creation is false. He is telling you that he is a liar,
by creating the earth with all the false evidence.
If He were going to do that, He'd make a good job of it, with more
fossils than the flood could account for and missing links and all
the other things that would make the matter conclusive, rather than
up to what you CHOOSE to believe.
Uh, Davey, the matter is conclusive. The only people who "choose" a
belief in a god that denies the evidence of God's Creation are the
people who don't understand or know what the evidence is. And they
refuse to look at it.
Of course I look at it.
From your comments below, you do not look at it, and you make no
effort to understand it. Nor do you even correlate it with anything
else.
Oh yes I do.
I understand very well.
I see a roomful of bones that is supposed to represent millions of years
of hominid evolution. A single Corydoras that is supposed to show the
entire fossil record for a genus of hundreds of species of bony plated
fishes from all over South America - one single C. revelatus fossil.
One sample maybe the only sample for a genus. After all, nobody but
fundies claim that the fossil record should be anywhere near complete.
What you are doing above is focusing on some missing fossils while
ignoring all the fossils that we have.
And that just doesn't cut it.
Where are excuse me the transitional forms?
There ain't none, and that just doesn't cut it.
And it just doesn't cut it.
I see the number of permutations in a strand of DNA that would be
necessary to command amino acids to structure around it and the
complexity of the amino acids and number of them that would be there
inside an existing membrane that came from nowhere in order to make even
the most basic form of life from nothing.
Nice misunderstanding of how life began.
And it just doesn't cut it.
And that doesn't cut it.
And you repeating my phrase just for humorous effect just doesn't cut it.
What might begin to make a slight incision on the surface of it would be if
you could explain how exactly a piece of DNA as complex as is found in the
simplest viable life form - and that excludes viruses and retroviruses which
depend on higher forms and which in my opinion "disevolved" from them -
could assemble itself together with the amino acids it needs to carry on its
existence again in the simplest feasible form of life, without there being
some sort of a membrane around it, or if there was one, how it got there.
But you can't do that, and that just doesn't cut it.
I hear how we have evolved on one planet among millions and billions of
them of which none have so far managed to achieve the technology to get
here and talk to us, which technology we ourselves are only in
geological time a fraction away from and I am supposed to believe that
there is nothing special about this planet or about this species, which
of all thin gs is the only one that can even think on these questions.
And it just doesn't cut it.
Well, we maybe the only species in the entire universe that has the
ability to utilize technology, or we may not be. Either way, it does
not make us "special". All it indicates is that we are unique.
Nice thing to go taking for granted when it is all out of chance, if you
leave God out of the equation.
Your evidence is not conclusive, but your ability to kid yourself that
it is, and therefore forget God, or and therefore have a God but with
lower level claims on you, is practised to perfection.
Well, since you did not mention any evidence for evolution, I can
see why you think that it is not conclusive.
You have ignored the genetic similarities and differences in related
organisms, you have ignored the physical similarities and differences
in related organisms, and you have ignored the clear changes in the
fossil records that show organisms changing over time.
The absence of transitional forms shows they don't change over time, and the
genetic similarities are due to the fact that God used these as building
blocks in a series of perfect creations.
An architect usually makes houses which are variations on a theme.
Architects don't often go doing something wildly different to what they
usually do. One architect was asked to make a round house by one Russian
nouveau riche, and he said at first he didn't want to, as he always made
different houses, but using right angles. He wanted to know why the nouveau
riche Russian wanted a house that was perfectly round, and pointed out the
difficulty in effectively furnishing it, catering for shelves and doors and
cabinets and cupboards, spoke of the waste of space. The Russian was
adamant, and finally the architect gave way, but he wasn't happy.
So the architect said "Okay, I'll do it, but would you mind telling me why
you want it designed this way?" And the Russian said that he was about to
get married, and his future mother in law had said she was sure her daughter
would 'find a corner for her in her new home'. Well, God doesn't have any
future mother in laws, so He can stick to variations on a common DNA design
for all life forms including mankind if He wants to.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Understanding evolution, but still believing creation |
28 Dec 2004 06:11:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:49:49 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> wrote:
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95CC70DA59F30dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Uh, Davey, the matter is conclusive. The only people who "choose" a
belief in a god that denies the evidence of God's Creation are the
people who don't understand or know what the evidence is. And they
refuse to look at it.
Of course I look at it.
From your comments below, you do not look at it, and you make no
effort to understand it. Nor do you even correlate it with anything
else.
Oh yes I do.
I understand very well.
I see a roomful of bones that is supposed to represent millions of years
of hominid evolution. A single Corydoras that is supposed to show the
entire fossil record for a genus of hundreds of species of bony plated
fishes from all over South America - one single C. revelatus fossil.
One sample maybe the only sample for a genus. After all, nobody but
fundies claim that the fossil record should be anywhere near complete.
What you are doing above is focusing on some missing fossils while
ignoring all the fossils that we have.
And that just doesn't cut it.
Where are excuse me the transitional forms?
There ain't none, and that just doesn't cut it.
This is one of the.........
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
"There are no transitional fossils."
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism
intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics
of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some
characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can
occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species,
between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found
stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral
lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but
evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with
transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's
nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or
any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents,
or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of
descendents evolves.
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology
has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering
thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive
and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still
spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions
favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may
occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively
short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances
of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still
many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils
exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to
mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.
For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the
talk.origins archive, and see
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images
for some invertebrate groups.
The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is
perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When
people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often
subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around
the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for
philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind
of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird,"
when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more
reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are
man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and
it doesn't.
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium
was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil
record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of
transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why
speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases,
gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some
species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In
fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of
intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any
fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." -
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Understanding evolution, but still believing creation |
28 Dec 2004 11:22:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:49:49 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95CC70DA59F30dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95C9A0A006EADdickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:Xns95C9594597687dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
unbound.variable@gmail.com wrote in talk.origins
No. But the existence of the particular God I happen to believe
in is incompatible with life being the result of the
evolutionary process.
Interesting, then your god is telling you that the evidence that
shows in his creation is false. He is telling you that he is a
liar, by creating the earth with all the false evidence.
If He were going to do that, He'd make a good job of it, with more
fossils than the flood could account for and missing links and all
the other things that would make the matter conclusive, rather than
up to what you CHOOSE to believe.
Uh, Davey, the matter is conclusive. The only people who "choose" a
belief in a god that denies the evidence of God's Creation are the
people who don't understand or know what the evidence is. And they
refuse to look at it.
Of course I look at it.
From your comments below, you do not look at it, and you make no effort
to understand it. Nor do you even correlate it with anything else.
Oh yes I do.
I understand very well.
I see a roomful of bones that is supposed to represent millions of
years of hominid evolution. A single Corydoras that is supposed to
show the entire fossil record for a genus of hundreds of species of
bony plated fishes from all over South America - one single C.
revelatus fossil.
One sample maybe the only sample for a genus. After all, nobody but
fundies claim that the fossil record should be anywhere near complete.
What you are doing above is focusing on some missing fossils while
ignoring all the fossils that we have. And that just doesn't cut it.
Where are excuse me the transitional forms? There ain't none, and that
just doesn't cut it.
Yes, the fossil record clearly supports Creationism. That is why there
are fossils representing every "kind" of creature, including humans, all
the way back to the oldest strata. That is why all the rocks date to
about 6,000 years old, using a variety of reproducible scientific dating
methods. That is why living and fossilized life forms show unmistakable
radiation from a point somewhere in the Middle East, where Noah's ark
landed.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Understanding evolution, but still believing creation |
29 Dec 2004 02:05:32 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:49:49 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95CC70DA59F30dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95C9A0A006EADdickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> napisał w
wiadomości
news:Xns95C9594597687dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
unbound.variable@gmail.com wrote in talk.origins
No. But the existence of the particular God I happen to
believe in is incompatible with life being the result of the
evolutionary process.
Interesting, then your god is telling you that the evidence that
shows in his creation is false. He is telling you that he is a
liar, by creating the earth with all the false evidence.
If He were going to do that, He'd make a good job of it, with
more fossils than the flood could account for and missing links
and all the other things that would make the matter conclusive,
rather than up to what you CHOOSE to believe.
Uh, Davey, the matter is conclusive. The only people who "choose"
a belief in a god that denies the evidence of God's Creation are
the people who don't understand or know what the evidence is. And
they refuse to look at it.
Of course I look at it.
From your comments below, you do not look at it, and you make no
effort to understand it. Nor do you even correlate it with anything
else.
Oh yes I do.
I understand very well.
I see a roomful of bones that is supposed to represent millions of
years of hominid evolution. A single Corydoras that is supposed to
show the entire fossil record for a genus of hundreds of species of
bony plated fishes from all over South America - one single C.
revelatus fossil.
One sample maybe the only sample for a genus. After all, nobody but
fundies claim that the fossil record should be anywhere near
complete. What you are doing above is focusing on some missing
fossils while ignoring all the fossils that we have. And that just
doesn't cut it.
Where are excuse me the transitional forms? There ain't none, and
that just doesn't cut it.
Yes, the fossil record clearly supports Creationism. That is why
there are fossils representing every "kind" of creature, including
humans, all the way back to the oldest strata. That is why all the
rocks date to about 6,000 years old, using a variety of reproducible
scientific dating methods. That is why living and fossilized life
forms show unmistakable radiation from a point somewhere in the
Middle East, where Noah's ark landed.
Hey Mark,
Are you a YEC like me? Check out http://yecs.org .
God bless,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "bloodyvikings" |
|
| Title: Re: Understanding evolution, but still believing creation |
29 Dec 2004 04:40:21 AM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Yes, the fossil record clearly supports Creationism. That is why
there are fossils representing every "kind" of creature, including
humans, all the way back to the oldest strata. That is why all the
rocks date to about 6,000 years old, using a variety of reproducible
scientific dating methods. That is why living and fossilized life
forms show unmistakable radiation from a point somewhere in the
Middle East, where Noah's ark landed.
Hey Mark,
Are you a YEC like me? Check out http://yecs.org .
God bless,
Jason
Another irony meter blows up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bloodyvikings" |
|
| Title: Re: Understanding evolution, but still believing creation |
28 Dec 2004 03:45:08 AM |
|
|
Uncle Davey quoted:
<snip>
To precis:
"You can't argue against me by poking fun, now answer my question!";
and went on to tell an elaborate mother-in-law joke in order to prove
that God exists.
Davey: The word is abiogenesis as in:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Don't just read, comprehend.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Understanding evolution, but still believing creation |
28 Dec 2004 06:06:22 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo. > napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95CC70DA59F30dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo. > napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95C9A0A006EADdickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
Uncle Davey wrote in talk.origins
Użytkownik "***** C" <foo. > napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns95C9594597687dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
unbound.variable@gmail.com wrote in talk.origins
No. But the existence of the particular God I happen to
believe in is incompatible with life being the result of the
evolutionary process.
Interesting, then your god is telling you that the evidence that
shows in his creation is false. He is telling you that he is a
liar, by creating the earth with all the false evidence.
If He were going to do that, He'd make a good job of it, with more
fossils than the flood could account for and missing links and all
the other things that would make the matter conclusive, rather
than up to what you CHOOSE to believe.
Uh, Davey, the matter is conclusive. The only people who "choose" a
belief in a god that denies the evidence of God's Creation are the
people who don't understand or know what the evidence is. And they
refuse to look at it.
Of course I look at it.
From your comments below, you do not look at it, and you make no
effort to understand it. Nor do you even correlate it with anything
else.
Oh yes I do.
I understand very well.
Quit lying. You have been here long enough to know that the bs. that
you posted is totally false.
I see a roomful of bones that is supposed to represent millions of
years of hominid evolution. A single Corydoras that is supposed to
show the entire fossil record for a genus of hundreds of species of
bony plated fishes from all over South America - one single C.
revelatus fossil.
One sample maybe the only sample for a genus. After all, nobody but
fundies claim that the fossil record should be anywhere near complete.
What you are doing above is focusing on some missing fossils while
ignoring all the fossils that we have.
And that just doesn't cut it.
Where are excuse me the transitional forms?
There ain't none, and that just doesn't cut it.
You are either in total denial, or are an absolute liar, you have
been around here more than long enough to have seen discussions on
many transitionals.
To deny them is to be so deep in denial that you have lost all grips
on reality, or to be knowingly lying.
snip
And it just doesn't cut it.
And that doesn't cut it.
And you repeating my phrase just for humorous effect just doesn't cut
it. What might begin to make a slight incision on the surface of it
would be if you could explain how exactly a piece of DNA as complex as
is found in the simplest viable life form - and that excludes viruses
and retroviruses which depend on higher forms and which in my opinion
"disevolved" from them - could assemble itself together with the amino
acids it needs to carry on its existence again in the simplest feasible
form of life, without there being some sort of a membrane around it, or
if there was one, how it got there. But you can't do that, and that just
doesn't cut it.
You were not asking for an explanation, you were creating a strawman,
and I see no reason to explain it. You can go to talkorigins.org and find
a very good explanation.
snip
Your evidence is not conclusive, but your ability to kid yourself
that it is, and therefore forget God, or and therefore have a God but
with lower level claims on you, is practised to perfection.
Well, since you did not mention any evidence for evolution, I can
see why you think that it is not conclusive.
You have ignored the genetic similarities and differences in related
organisms, you have ignored the physical similarities and differences
in related organisms, and you have ignored the clear changes in the
fossil records that show organisms changing over time.
The absence of transitional forms shows they don't change over time, and
the genetic similarities are due to the fact that God used these as
building blocks in a series of perfect creations.
What planet do you live on? What absence of transitional forms?
Oh, and the bit about perfect creations? I guess you are being
funny.
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Understanding evolution, but still believing creation
Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
Change in Evolution Policy Dies, but Debate Goes on in Roseville
Funny How Rightwingers Believe in Social Darwinism, But Not Evolution
Re: Creationist: Why do you accept gravity but reject evolution?
Most Americans do not understand evolution but they know they must be against 'it'
think we all know who was responsible for that, the Godless liberals who cannot stand having their immorality shoved back in their ugly face!! The defenders of free thought, the Big Bang theory and evolution, are not only striking out at me, but at a
Atheists Are Not Next Phase In Evolution, But Mutants Doomed To Extinction
| Most Americans do not understand evolution but they know they are against it
Ohio: Student Outraged that Evolution Can Be Taught, But Not Creationism
I'm probably preaching to the converted, but...
Surprise! The Legion of GOP Chickenhawks. Once Again Showing How GOP traitors Can Talk The Talk But Can't Walk The Walk (Re: Liberal DemocRAT Socialists are wimps & cowards!!!!)
Liberals HATE Success, but LOVE Class Warfare!
Johnson Controls Lay Off 885 (But They Got that $50 Tax Rebates From Bush)
Economists Contradict Kerry's Badmouthing - Economists Optimistic, but Kerry Keeps Attacking Bush's Policies.
|
|
|
