| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"No Reply" |
| Date: |
17 Jun 2007 10:00:07 AM |
| Object: |
Ten Questions about Origins |
Ten Questions about Origins
What fossil record is there of any transitional fossils indicating that
one order evolved into another order?
Is there any evidence of a order that was at one time a different order? I
recognize that there is adaptation within an order, different breeds of
dogs for example, but I don't know of any case where there is any evidence
of a dog becoming a horse.
What scientific evidence is there to support a natural origin of life?
(The evolutionist may point to the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953, much
celebrated at the time. They initially said they had reproduced the
precise conditions under which in the primordial soup life could have
arisen. But after experts looked at it, it turned out that there was
frequent human intervention and had the process been left to itself, it
could not have worked. In short, there is no evidence.)
How does one support the conclusion of the American Society of Biological
Teachers that evolution is "unsupervised, impersonal and random?" What
scientific (as opposed to philosophical) basis is there for this
statement?
(A follow-up question for 4) Is this not inconsistent with discoveries
about DNA, which indicate that there is a mathematical formula determining
the complexity of human beings? Do mathematical formulas have naturalistic
origins?
How do we reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the universe as
we know it? If the universe is indeed winding down, does that not
presuppose that sometime and by some means it was being wound up? By what
means?
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
What caused the Big Bang?
What did Einstein mean when he said, "God does not play dice with the
cosmos?" If he considered evidence of intelligence in the universe, why
shouldn't we?
What evidence is there for genetic mutations that increase the
biologically useful information of the genome? Or to put it another way:
What evidence is there for genetic mutations facilitating
macroevolutionary change? When you ask these questions, beware. Aggressive
evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you, dismiss the questions, laugh
at them, claim that they're ridiculous, or say that you're basing it on
your faith. Stand your ground. This is not based on your faith. These are
common sense inquiries that anybody in an academically free environment
ought to pursue. They are not unreasonable questions, even though that is
what your adversary will say. Or he will tell you that you really don't
understand or that you have to be more into science to grasp this, or it's
too complex a concept to explain. If it's too complex to explain, how
could anyone teach it?
The one you must never let evolutionists run away from is Einstein.
Naturalists in the evolutionist lobby do not allow anybody to talk about
intelligent design because they say it comes from faith. It doesn't. There
is a respectable school of science and Einstein raised these questions.
So why should they be stricken out of inquiry?
If you can get a naturalist to acknowledge that they can be discussed,
he's finished, which is why he'll fight so hard to reject the questions.
He's finished because there is much more scientific evidence for design
than there is for natural origin.
Everything we say about natural origin is speculation, just as the God
hypothesis that we believe in is speculation because nobody was there at
the creation. But we can look at the character of the universe and draw
certain conclusions. Because of a prior philosophical commitment to
naturalism this is precisely what the naturalist refuses to do.
By Charles Colson
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
17 Jun 2007 05:41:23 PM |
|
|
"No Reply" <nr222_a@shotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107qo.n8n.19.1@news.alt.net...
Ten Questions about Origins
Your handle is quite appropriate.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 12:52:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:41:23 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <5dlrk4F34rhgdU1@mid.individual.net>
"No Reply" <nr222_a@shotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107qo.n8n.19.1@news.alt.net...
Ten Questions about Origins
Your handle is quite appropriate.
As would have been "Cretin"
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
17 Jun 2007 04:03:08 PM |
|
|
What evidence is there for genetic mutations that increase the
biologically useful information of the genome? Or to put it another way:
What evidence is there for genetic mutations facilitating
macroevolutionary change?
Regarding the "increase in useful information": If an organism
reproduces, it has proven itself 100% useful (useful being your word,
not mine). We are all descended from 100% useful organisms, so any
further increase in usefulness doesn't make sense. However, what form
is useful and what form is not useful, depends on the environment.
Evolutionary change could be describe as the maintaining of 100%
usefulness in the context of an ever-changing environment.If you mean
an increase in information, that depends on which of the several
standard definitions of information you are referring to.
The evidence for "genetic mutations facilitating macroevolutionary
change", can be found by Googling "observed instances of Speciation".
It's a bit like asking if we have enough weather to make a climate.
Macroevolutionary change is accumulated microevolutionary change.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 04:59:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1107qo.n8n.19.1@news.alt.net>, No
Reply said...
Is there any evidence of a order that was at one
time a different order?
That's like asking whether a man and his cousin
were once the same person.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
17 Jun 2007 02:31:21 PM |
|
|
No Reply wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
#
Where did you steal this? It looks smiliar to Well's dishonest list of
10 questions, but I thin it is different
What fossil record is there of any transitional fossils indicating that
one order evolved into another order?
Is there any evidence of a order that was at one time a different order? I
recognize that there is adaptation within an order, different breeds of
dogs for example, but I don't know of any case where there is any evidence
of a dog becoming a horse.
What scientific evidence is there to support a natural origin of life?
(The evolutionist may point to the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953, much
celebrated at the time. They initially said they had reproduced the
precise conditions under which in the primordial soup life could have
arisen. But after experts looked at it, it turned out that there was
frequent human intervention and had the process been left to itself, it
could not have worked. In short, there is no evidence.)
This is not true, in fact recent evidence supports this
How does one support the conclusion of the American Society of Biological
Teachers that evolution is "unsupervised, impersonal and random?" What
scientific (as opposed to philosophical) basis is there for this
statement?
Given the lie in the previous statement, I am doubtful if this is the
case, but if so, they probably should not have said this. More accurate
is to say there is no evidence that there is any supervision or guidance
(A follow-up question for 4) Is this not inconsistent with discoveries
about DNA, which indicate that there is a mathematical formula determining
the complexity of human beings? Do mathematical formulas have naturalistic
origins?
No, there is no such mathematical formula
How do we reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the universe as
we know it? If the universe is indeed winding down, does that not
presuppose that sometime and by some means it was being wound up? By what
means?
By understanding that the second law actually says and not lying about it
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
That life, unlike mousetraps, reproduces
What caused the Big Bang?
This is not known yet
What did Einstein mean when he said, "God does not play dice with the
cosmos?" If he considered evidence of intelligence in the universe, why
shouldn't we?
Eisntein did not consider evidence of intelligence in the universe
What evidence is there for genetic mutations that increase the
biologically useful information of the genome?
Meaningless question unless "biologically useful information of the
genome" is defined and a way of measuring it supplied
The one you must never let evolutionists run away from is Einstein.
Naturalists in the evolutionist lobby do not allow anybody to talk about
intelligent design because they say it comes from faith. It doesn't. There
is a respectable school of science and Einstein raised these questions.
So why should they be stricken out of inquiry?
Because he didn't
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 08:40:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:31:21 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
No Reply wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
.. . .
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
That life, unlike mousetraps, reproduces
The question is not about life reproducing itself. The question is
about life producing different life that it can't reproduce with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 02:14:52 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:31:21 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
No Reply wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
. . .
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
That life, unlike mousetraps, reproduces
The question is not about life reproducing itself. The question is
about life producing different life that it can't reproduce with.
No it isn't, it's about the assumption that something incapable of
reproducing and changing slightly each generation is in anyway a good
analogy for the generation of IC structures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
21 Jun 2007 12:21:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:14:52 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:31:21 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
No Reply wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
. . .
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
That life, unlike mousetraps, reproduces
The question is not about life reproducing itself. The question is
about life producing different life that it can't reproduce with.
No it isn't, it's about the assumption that something incapable of
reproducing and changing slightly each generation is in anyway a good
analogy for the generation of IC structures.
How can something incapable of reproducing be the generation
of much more than dung and urine?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
22 Jun 2007 12:01:33 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:14:52 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:31:21 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
No Reply wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
. . .
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
That life, unlike mousetraps, reproduces
The question is not about life reproducing itself. The question is
about life producing different life that it can't reproduce with.
No it isn't, it's about the assumption that something incapable of
reproducing and changing slightly each generation is in anyway a good
analogy for the generation of IC structures.
How can something incapable of reproducing be the generation
of much more than dung and urine?
Your question makes no sense
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
17 Jun 2007 02:48:49 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jun, 16:00, "No Reply" <nr22...@shotmail.com> wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
What fossil record is there of any transitional fossils indicating that
one order evolved into another order?
Is there any evidence of a order that was at one time a different order? I
recognize that there is adaptation within an order, different breeds of
dogs for example, but I don't know of any case where there is any evidence
of a dog becoming a horse.
What scientific evidence is there to support a natural origin of life?
(The evolutionist may point to the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953, much
celebrated at the time. They initially said they had reproduced the
precise conditions under which in the primordial soup life could have
arisen. But after experts looked at it, it turned out that there was
frequent human intervention and had the process been left to itself, it
could not have worked. In short, there is no evidence.)
How does one support the conclusion of the American Society of Biological
Teachers that evolution is "unsupervised, impersonal and random?" What
scientific (as opposed to philosophical) basis is there for this
statement?
(A follow-up question for 4) Is this not inconsistent with discoveries
about DNA, which indicate that there is a mathematical formula determining
the complexity of human beings? Do mathematical formulas have naturalistic
origins?
How do we reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the universe as
we know it? If the universe is indeed winding down, does that not
presuppose that sometime and by some means it was being wound up? By what
means?
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
What caused the Big Bang?
What did Einstein mean when he said, "God does not play dice with the
cosmos?" If he considered evidence of intelligence in the universe, why
shouldn't we?
What evidence is there for genetic mutations that increase the
biologically useful information of the genome? Or to put it another way:
What evidence is there for genetic mutations facilitating
macroevolutionary change? When you ask these questions, beware. Aggressive
evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you, dismiss the questions, laugh
at them, claim that they're ridiculous, or say that you're basing it on
your faith. Stand your ground. This is not based on your faith. These are
common sense inquiries that anybody in an academically free environment
ought to pursue. They are not unreasonable questions, even though that is
what your adversary will say. Or he will tell you that you really don't
understand or that you have to be more into science to grasp this, or it's
too complex a concept to explain. If it's too complex to explain, how
could anyone teach it?
The one you must never let evolutionists run away from is Einstein.
Naturalists in the evolutionist lobby do not allow anybody to talk about
intelligent design because they say it comes from faith. It doesn't. There
is a respectable school of science and Einstein raised these questions.
So why should they be stricken out of inquiry?
If you can get a naturalist to acknowledge that they can be discussed,
he's finished, which is why he'll fight so hard to reject the questions.
He's finished because there is much more scientific evidence for design
than there is for natural origin.
Everything we say about natural origin is speculation, just as the God
hypothesis that we believe in is speculation because nobody was there at
the creation. But we can look at the character of the universe and draw
certain conclusions. Because of a prior philosophical commitment to
naturalism this is precisely what the naturalist refuses to do.
By Charles Colson
I would just like to tilt my hat at the very learned folk on this
forum. It does seem that the Universe created life to observe itself.
The old saying "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it did it
ever exist, etc. Also recent computer simulations in respect of brain
size compared to body size, which seems to imply the intelligence of a
being, Dolphins, have this higher ratio of Brain size to body mass.
Humans having the largest brains/ body mass of all living things, that
we know about, suggests, that we do exist in a very privileged part of
the Universe. In fact through computer technology, it has been shown
that human beings are as good as it could ever be as far as brain
power or computing power, and like the Matrix prophesised, advancement
will only take place through computers. In fact a great deal of
cosmologists think that our first contact with extra terrestrial life
will be in the form of a machine , rather than a biological organism.
So we are living in strange days. Quantum mechanics, the observation
on the cosmos; which seems to say that the Universe is in fact
accelerating, rather than slowing down re the stars. and will
accelerate for ever, the whole Universe eventually running out of
power, and becoming a dark black cold void as apposed to the old
theory that the gravitational mass would eventually implode on itself
creating another big bang. As far as Intelligent design or blind
evolution, the person who was casting doubt on the evolution theory,
and supporting the grand design, and who was critical saying
Aggressive
evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you,. A simple question is,
Extraordinary claims, need extraordinary evidence. The Scientific
facts regarding Genes, and the random nature of evolution, does not
point towards a grand designer. If you believe in a Creator, where is
your evidence? Rather than trying to find hole in ours. I mean it all
boils down to,and this is why I never bought Richard Dawkins " The God
Delusion" If there was a creator, who created it, that must have been
some smart entity, and if you take it further, who created the
creators creator, is as easy as eggs I eggs
Cheers
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 07:15:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I would just like to tilt my hat at the very learned folk on this
forum. It does seem that the Universe created life to observe itself.
The old saying "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it did it
ever exist, etc.
The saying is: "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it, did it make
a sound?"
The answer is definitively no. Sound is a subjective sense. It is like
saying, "If a light goes on automatically and no one is there, did anyone
see it?" The tree falling, like the light, produces energy waves that have
the potentiality for being sensed, but they are not the sensation itself.
Also recent computer simulations in respect of brain
size compared to body size, which seems to imply the intelligence of a
being, Dolphins, have this higher ratio of Brain size to body mass.
Humans having the largest brains/ body mass of all living things, that
we know about, suggests, that we do exist in a very privileged part of
the Universe. In fact through computer technology, it has been shown
that human beings are as good as it could ever be as far as brain
power or computing power
Cite!
and like the Matrix prophesised, advancement
will only take place through computers. In fact a great deal of
cosmologists think that our first contact with extra terrestrial life
will be in the form of a machine, rather than a biological organism.
So we are living in strange days. Quantum mechanics, the observation
on the cosmos; which seems to say that the Universe is in fact
accelerating, rather than slowing down re the stars. and will
accelerate for ever, the whole Universe eventually running out of
power, and becoming a dark black cold void as apposed to the old
theory that the gravitational mass would eventually implode on itself
creating another big bang. As far as Intelligent design or blind
evolution, the person who was casting doubt on the evolution theory,
and supporting the grand design, and who was critical saying
Aggressive
evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you,. A simple question is,
Extraordinary claims, need extraordinary evidence. The Scientific
facts regarding Genes, and the random nature of evolution, does not
point towards a grand designer. If you believe in a Creator, where is
your evidence? Rather than trying to find hole in ours. I mean it all
boils down to,and this is why I never bought Richard Dawkins " The God
Delusion" If there was a creator, who created it, that must have been
some smart entity, and if you take it further, who created the
creators creator, is as easy as eggs I eggs
Dave...a little constructive criticism. I've learned through painful
experience that it's a good idea to keep your posts short and simple when
drinking or stoned. The above is, for the most part, incoherent and rife
with spelling, usage, and grammatical errors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
20 Jun 2007 01:19:59 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun, 13:15, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
fudgepatter...@yahoo.com wrote:
I would just like to tilt my hat at the very learned folk on this
forum. It does seem that the Universe created life to observe itself.
The old saying "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it did it
ever exist, etc.
The saying is: "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it, did it make
a sound?"
The answer is definitively no. Sound is a subjective sense. It is like
saying, "If a light goes on automatically and no one is there, did anyone
see it?" The tree falling, like the light, produces energy waves that have
the potentiality for being sensed, but they are not the sensation itself.
Also recent computer simulations in respect of brain
size compared to body size, which seems to imply the intelligence of a
being, Dolphins, have this higher ratio of Brain size to body mass.
Humans having the largest brains/ body mass of all living things, that
we know about, suggests, that we do exist in a very privileged part of
the Universe. In fact through computer technology, it has been shown
that human beings are as good as it could ever be as far as brain
power or computing power
Cite!
and like the Matrix prophesised, advancement
will only take place through computers. In fact a great deal of
cosmologists think that our first contact with extra terrestrial life
will be in the form of a machine, rather than a biological organism.
So we are living in strange days. Quantum mechanics, the observation
on the cosmos; which seems to say that the Universe is in fact
accelerating, rather than slowing down re the stars. and will
accelerate for ever, the whole Universe eventually running out of
power, and becoming a dark black cold void as apposed to the old
theory that the gravitational mass would eventually implode on itself
creating another big bang. As far as Intelligent design or blind
evolution, the person who was casting doubt on the evolution theory,
and supporting the grand design, and who was critical saying
Aggressive
evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you,. A simple question is,
Extraordinary claims, need extraordinary evidence. The Scientific
facts regarding Genes, and the random nature of evolution, does not
point towards a grand designer. If you believe in a Creator, where is
your evidence? Rather than trying to find hole in ours. I mean it all
boils down to,and this is why I never bought Richard Dawkins " The God
Delusion" If there was a creator, who created it, that must have been
some smart entity, and if you take it further, who created the
creators creator, is as easy as eggs I eggs
Dave...a little constructive criticism. I've learned through painful
experience that it's a good idea to keep your posts short and simple when
drinking or stoned. The above is, for the most part, incoherent and rife
with spelling, usage, and grammatical errors.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I agree, I do post when drunk, you have sussed me out, and I will
never post on this board again, for that reason, and also because no
one has a clue what is real science today or imagined, or whether the
big bang actually happened, it might have been just a bang in our part
of the universe. Just read a book called"Masters of Time" by John
Boslough, and cosmologists still cannot explain why the distribution
of matter is so uneven, in fact scientists know ***** all about how the
universe bothered to exist in the first place. This new Particle
accelerator, the biggest in the world, which was on all the news
channels in Europe a few months ago, has gone quite, no news, it was
supposed to be the ultimate tool to find out what matter is made from,
and to try and find the illusive Higgs, Higgs Bosum, forgive the
spelling. If I was a betting man, I would say they will discover
nothing of any worth, but its only human nature to try.
Fudge
Last post and before the insults, I will not be reading the answers to
this blog.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 07:33:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:15:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <aZidnReu06XK6uvbnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@giganews.com>
fudgepatterson@yahoo.com wrote:
I would just like to tilt my hat at the very learned folk on this
forum. It does seem that the Universe created life to observe itself.
The old saying "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it did it
ever exist, etc.
The saying is: "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it, did it make
a sound?"
The answer is definitively no. Sound is a subjective sense. It is like
saying, "If a light goes on automatically and no one is there, did anyone
see it?" The tree falling, like the light, produces energy waves that have
the potentiality for being sensed, but they are not the sensation itself.
How very odd.
You appear to have redefined the word "sound".
:
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 08:40:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:48:49 -0700, wrote:
On 17 Jun, 16:00, "No Reply" <nr22...@shotmail.com> wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
What fossil record is there of any transitional fossils indicating that
one order evolved into another order?
Is there any evidence of a order that was at one time a different order? I
recognize that there is adaptation within an order, different breeds of
dogs for example, but I don't know of any case where there is any evidence
of a dog becoming a horse.
What scientific evidence is there to support a natural origin of life?
(The evolutionist may point to the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953, much
celebrated at the time. They initially said they had reproduced the
precise conditions under which in the primordial soup life could have
arisen. But after experts looked at it, it turned out that there was
frequent human intervention and had the process been left to itself, it
could not have worked. In short, there is no evidence.)
How does one support the conclusion of the American Society of Biological
Teachers that evolution is "unsupervised, impersonal and random?" What
scientific (as opposed to philosophical) basis is there for this
statement?
(A follow-up question for 4) Is this not inconsistent with discoveries
about DNA, which indicate that there is a mathematical formula determining
the complexity of human beings? Do mathematical formulas have naturalistic
origins?
How do we reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the universe as
we know it? If the universe is indeed winding down, does that not
presuppose that sometime and by some means it was being wound up? By what
means?
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
What caused the Big Bang?
What did Einstein mean when he said, "God does not play dice with the
cosmos?" If he considered evidence of intelligence in the universe, why
shouldn't we?
What evidence is there for genetic mutations that increase the
biologically useful information of the genome? Or to put it another way:
What evidence is there for genetic mutations facilitating
macroevolutionary change? When you ask these questions, beware. Aggressive
evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you, dismiss the questions, laugh
at them, claim that they're ridiculous, or say that you're basing it on
your faith. Stand your ground. This is not based on your faith. These are
common sense inquiries that anybody in an academically free environment
ought to pursue. They are not unreasonable questions, even though that is
what your adversary will say. Or he will tell you that you really don't
understand or that you have to be more into science to grasp this, or it's
too complex a concept to explain. If it's too complex to explain, how
could anyone teach it?
The one you must never let evolutionists run away from is Einstein.
Naturalists in the evolutionist lobby do not allow anybody to talk about
intelligent design because they say it comes from faith. It doesn't. There
is a respectable school of science and Einstein raised these questions.
So why should they be stricken out of inquiry?
If you can get a naturalist to acknowledge that they can be discussed,
he's finished, which is why he'll fight so hard to reject the questions.
He's finished because there is much more scientific evidence for design
than there is for natural origin.
Everything we say about natural origin is speculation, just as the God
hypothesis that we believe in is speculation because nobody was there at
the creation. But we can look at the character of the universe and draw
certain conclusions. Because of a prior philosophical commitment to
naturalism this is precisely what the naturalist refuses to do.
By Charles Colson
I would just like to tilt my hat at the very learned folk on this
forum. It does seem that the Universe created life to observe itself.
The old saying "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it did it
ever exist, etc.
Whether or not anyone hears it has nothing to do with it.
Also recent computer simulations in respect of brain
size compared to body size, which seems to imply the intelligence of a
being, Dolphins, have this higher ratio of Brain size to body mass.
They still are incapable of language.
Humans having the largest brains/ body mass of all living things, that
we know about, suggests, that we do exist in a very privileged part of
the Universe.
Should we be thankful, and who/what to thank for the position if so?
In fact through computer technology, it has been shown
that human beings are as good as it could ever be as far as brain
power or computing power,
Hard to believe.
and like the Matrix prophesised, advancement
will only take place through computers. In fact a great deal of
cosmologists think that our first contact with extra terrestrial life
will be in the form of a machine , rather than a biological organism.
So we are living in strange days. Quantum mechanics, the observation
on the cosmos; which seems to say that the Universe is in fact
accelerating, rather than slowing down re the stars. and will
accelerate for ever, the whole Universe eventually running out of
power, and becoming a dark black cold void as apposed to the old
theory that the gravitational mass would eventually implode on itself
creating another big bang. As far as Intelligent design or blind
evolution, the person who was casting doubt on the evolution theory,
and supporting the grand design, and who was critical saying
Aggressive
evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you,. A simple question is,
Extraordinary claims, need extraordinary evidence. The Scientific
facts regarding Genes, and the random nature of evolution, does not
point towards a grand designer. If you believe in a Creator, where is
your evidence?
All evidence suggests that if there is a creator, he made use of
the evolutionary method of development.
Rather than trying to find hole in ours. I mean it all
boils down to,and this is why I never bought Richard Dawkins " The God
Delusion" If there was a creator, who created it,
It's all pretty much the same with or without a creator...how did
all the matter of the Universe come into existence? From what?
Creator or no creator it's equally incredible that anything exists.
that must have been
some smart entity, and if you take it further, who created the
creators creator, is as easy as eggs I eggs
The mother would have to have come first, especially in the
case of chickens.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 02:22:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:48:49 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
fudgepatterson@yahoo.com in
<1182109729.068308.46650@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
I would just like to tilt my hat at the very learned folk on this
forum. It does seem that the Universe created life to observe itself.
Seem like that to whom?
The old saying "If a tree falls in forest and no one hears it did it
ever exist, etc.
There is a similar saying that is part of a very interesting argument
by Bishop Berkeley.
Also recent computer simulations in respect of brain
size compared to body size, which seems to imply the intelligence of a
being,
What is a computer simulation in respect to brain size compared to
body size. That seems like a random collection of terms.
Dolphins, have this higher ratio of Brain size to body mass.
Humans having the largest brains/ body mass of all living things,
I thought you said that Dolphins were higher? What are you talking
about?
that
we know about, suggests, that we do exist in a very privileged part of
the Universe.
For some notion of privileged. We live in an *uncommon* part of the
Universe. Do you think that the Universe was made for the least common
part?
In fact through computer technology, it has been shown
that human beings are as good as it could ever be as far as brain
power or computing power,
No, it has not.
and like the Matrix prophesised, advancement
will only take place through computers. In fact a great deal of
cosmologists think that our first contact with extra terrestrial life
will be in the form of a machine , rather than a biological organism.
Which cosmologists think that?
So we are living in strange days.
As are all other days.
Quantum mechanics,
100 years old.
[snip]
--
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: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 05:44:49 PM |
|
|
In article <hjmd735r2jpcc5hl67ikf7clr09pq1bmvj@
4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein said...
Also recent computer simulations in respect of brain
size compared to body size, which seems to imply the intelligence of a
being,
What is a computer simulation in respect to brain size compared to
body size. That seems like a random collection of terms.
I gather that he's talking about encephalization
quotients, though I don't know whether the phrase
"computer simulation" indicates anything beyond
regular computer-based number crunching.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
20 Jun 2007 12:42:06 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun, 23:44, Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <hjmd735r2jpcc5hl67ikf7clr09pq1bmvj@
4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein said...
Also recent computer simulations in respect of brain
size compared to body size, which seems to imply the intelligence of a
being,
What is a computer simulation in respect to brain size compared to
body size. That seems like a random collection of terms.
I gather that he's talking about encephalization
quotients, though I don't know whether the phrase
"computer simulation" indicates anything beyond
regular computer-based number crunching.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
I must admit the brain size thing, and our brain being the best it can
possicbly get, i.e. increased brain size would not create any more
intelligence. I saw this in BBC Documentory, called Panorama. which
has a very good reputation throughout the world as being un
biased .Anyway do your research, intellegence is governed by body mass
to brain size ratio. And which cosmoligists think that the first
meeting with extra terristials will be macines. Michou Kaku, in his
book "The tenth Dimension", might have got that title slightly wrong
Cheers
Fudge
Fudge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
17 Jun 2007 10:38:23 AM |
|
|
On 17 jun, 17:00, "No Reply" <nr22...@shotmail.com> wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
What fossil record is there of any transitional fossils indicating that
one order evolved into another order?
<snip the rest in order to teply to this question>
From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
=========================================
The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and
classes:
Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show
it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably
vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
Dinosaur-bird transitions.
Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-
developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more
ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed
ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with
legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and
lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible
lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper
jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between
snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999;
Tchernov et al. 2000).
Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic
modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a
sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a,
2001b).
Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It
had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system
to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has
primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid
wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect
them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca,
Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid
has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is
seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species
Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group
of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of
hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae
arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft
sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth.
Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft
body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway
Morris 1998, 185-195).
Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are
transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between
modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
17 Jun 2007 10:06:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:00:07 +0000 (UTC), "No Reply"
<nr222_a@shotmail.com> wrote:
By Charles Colson
Now *there's* a reliable source! Idiot.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 04:56:04 PM |
|
|
In article <m9ja73pp7e1bds81um18bp7hh9ofu9bbh8@
4ax.com>, raven1 said...
By Charles Colson
Now *there's* a reliable source! Idiot.
It's astounding how conservatives make heroes of
criminals.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
18 Jun 2007 07:32:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:56:04 -0400, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
- Refer: <MPG.20e0c97ec413515f98a648@216.196.97.136>
In article <m9ja73pp7e1bds81um18bp7hh9ofu9bbh8@
4ax.com>, raven1 said...
By Charles Colson
Now *there's* a reliable source! Idiot.
It's astounding how conservatives make heroes of
criminals.
Why is it astounding?
Breaking the common law for power and profit is one of their base
tenets.
Frankly, I would be surprised if they did NOT idolize these pirates.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
17 Jun 2007 03:26:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:00:07 +0000, No Reply wrote:
Charles Colson
The Watergate criminal?
Yeah, that's a science background for ya...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
17 Jun 2007 10:00:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:26:37 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:00:07 +0000, No Reply wrote:
Charles Colson
The Watergate criminal?
Yeah, that's a science background for ya...
To a Luddite, anyone is just as qualified to pontificate about science
as anyone else - since they don't understand any of it anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tokay Pino Gris" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions about Origins |
21 Jun 2007 05:46:46 AM |
|
|
Sorry, can't resist...
No Reply wrote:
Ten Questions about Origins
What fossil record is there of any transitional fossils indicating that
one order evolved into another order?
Wikipedia. Have fun.
Is there any evidence of a order that was at one time a different order?
How would that be possible? Get a grip. Learn. Read.
I
recognize that there is adaptation within an order, different breeds of
dogs for example, but I don't know of any case where there is any evidence
of a dog becoming a horse.
Not that. But a land living mammal becoming a whale.
What scientific evidence is there to support a natural origin of life?
Different topic (as usual). But experiments show that it is possible.
Miller-Urey for example.
(The evolutionist may point to the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953, much
celebrated at the time.
Yep.
They initially said they had reproduced the
precise conditions under which in the primordial soup life could have
arisen. But after experts looked at it, it turned out that there was
frequent human intervention and had the process been left to itself, it
could not have worked. In short, there is no evidence.)
Wrong. Read up on it.
How does one support the conclusion of the American Society of Biological
Teachers that evolution is "unsupervised,
Correct
impersonal
Correct
and random?"
Wrong. Read up on it.
What
scientific (as opposed to philosophical) basis is there for this
statement?
None, because the "random" part is the crucial part and it is wrong.
(A follow-up question for 4) Is this not inconsistent with discoveries
about DNA, which indicate that there is a mathematical formula determining
the complexity of human beings?
Follow-up error.
Do mathematical formulas have naturalistic
origins?
Maths? No.
How do we reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the universe as
we know it? If the universe is indeed winding down,
Misconception.
does that not
presuppose that sometime and by some means it was being wound up? By what
means?
Follow-up error. Read up on physics.
What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe's findings (Darwin's Black Box)
about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his
mousetrap example?
Junk. Each and every one of Behe's examples could be shown to be not
irreducibly complex. EACH and EVERY one.
All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise
the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not
reasonable.
Boy, you are so out of date.... That is the "irreducible complexity"
sheme all in one sentence. But could be proven conclusively that it is
not true. Read up on it.
What caused the Big Bang?
Different question. Lots of ideas around that.
What did Einstein mean when he said, "God does not play dice with the
cosmos?" If he considered evidence of intelligence in the universe, why
shouldn't we?
Because he was a physicists? Would you trust a plumber to repair your
car? And what does it matter? If that is all you have, back to the
drawing board.
What evidence is there for genetic mutations that increase the
biologically useful information of the genome?
Plenty. Wikipedia. Google it. Have fun.
Or to put it another way:
What evidence is there for genetic mutations facilitating
macroevolutionary change?
If you can show to understand evolution, I will answer that question. If
you can show that you know what "macroevolution" is, I might.
When you ask these questions, beware. Aggressive
evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you, dismiss the questions, laugh
at them, claim that they're ridiculous, or say that you're basing it on
your faith.
Which you are. Man, the information is there. Look it up.
Stand your ground. This is not based on your faith.
Yes it is.
These are
common sense inquiries that anybody in an academically free environment
Oh goodie.... In other words "questions that every ignorant person
should ask"
ought to pursue. They are not unreasonable questions, even though that is
what your adversary will say.
Oh, not "unreasonable" but wrong. Go to school.
Or he will tell you that you really don't
understand or that you have to be more into science to grasp this, or it's
too complex a concept to explain. If it's too complex to explain, how
could anyone teach it?
If you are willing to learn, it is easy. Very easy.
The one you must never let evolutionists run away from is Einstein.
Naturalists in the evolutionist lobby do not allow anybody to talk about
intelligent design because they say it comes from faith. It doesn't.
Not? What is the scientific theory behind it? Not "Why evolution is
wrong" (which it isn't but for the sake of the argument). What IS YOUR
theory? Scientific theory?
There
is a respectable school of science and Einstein raised these questions.
So why should they be stricken out of inquiry?
If you can get a naturalist to acknowledge that they can be discussed,
he's finished,
Na. You think you have a "scientific debate" then. But you don't. You
don't have a theory to defend. "Goddidit" is not a scientific theory.
which is why he'll fight so hard to reject the questions.
He's finished because there is much more scientific evidence for design
than there is for natural origin.
Present it.
So far, haven't seen any.
Everything we say about natural origin is speculation, just as the God
hypothesis
not a valid scientific theory because not falsifiable.
that we believe in is speculation because nobody was there at
the creation. But we can look at the character of the universe and draw
certain conclusions.
Show the evidence, show your conclusions.
Because of a prior philosophical commitment to
naturalism this is precisely what the naturalist refuses to do.
By Charles Colson
Dimwit.
Tokay
--
Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the
Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at
midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the
invention of the motor car.
Bill Bryson
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
