| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ping" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2005 07:21:52 AM |
| Object: |
There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax and
realise that, your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't
already decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It
doesn't know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is
no past. There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you
don't know what is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely
brilliant. There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Regards
Ping
http://www.pingcreations.nu
.
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 12:25:33 PM |
|
|
"Ping" <nullycrunch@hotmail.com> suddenly spluttered:
I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax and
realise that, your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't
already decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It
doesn't know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is
no past. There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you
don't know what is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely
brilliant. There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Regards
Ping
http://www.pingcreations.nu
I can sum, up the 'meaning' of life in one word:
Vicissitudes.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 05:12:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1132644111.981824.315700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ping"
<nullycrunch@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax and
realise that, your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't
already decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It
doesn't know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is
no past. There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you
don't know what is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely
brilliant. There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Regards
Ping
http://www.pingcreations.nu
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 05:40:25 PM |
|
|
"If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?"
[Yes. There are many biological studies on this. Here are a couple. In
the meantime, has an experiment ever been done to demonstrate that life
can pop into existence at the whim of a deity?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,857635,00.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/19/INGJ68OT8F1.DTL]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 10:10:00 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211050912540001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <1132644111.981824.315700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ping"
<nullycrunch@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax and
realise that, your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't
already decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It
doesn't know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is
no past. There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you
don't know what is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely
brilliant. There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Regards
Ping
http://www.pingcreations.nu
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
Can your god evolve from a non god? Oh, he always was and always will be.
Maybe the Universe always was and always will be!
Maybe living cells evolved similar to the hundreds of thousands of chemical
compounds that have evolved in the Universe?
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 10:45:45 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
Can your god evolve from a non god? Oh, he always was and always will be.
Maybe the Universe always was and always will be!
Nope. The Steady State universe idea has been dead for decades,
much to the chagrin of atheists.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 12:52:17 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132699545.626182.221360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Bill wrote:
Can your god evolve from a non god? Oh, he always was and always will
be.
Maybe the Universe always was and always will be!
Nope. The Steady State universe idea has been dead for decades,
much to the chagrin of atheists.
Sorry, Cliff, but the Steady State idea isn't the only way that the
Universe could have always existed.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 02:19:21 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Sorry, Cliff, but the Steady State idea isn't the only way that the
Universe could have always existed.
Do tell. Aren't up on modern cosmology? The current evidence
is overwhelming that the universe we know (that we live in) had
a definite beginning, the so-called Big Bang, when matter and
the fabric of spacetime itself began (actually, for about the
first 100,000 years or so I think, it was all energy and no
matter). It has been expanding ever since. Never heard of
the Hubble constant, redshifting from distant objects, etc?
BTW, IIRC it was the Brit astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who coined
the term Big Bang as a way to try and discredit the idea back
in the '60s. He was about the last holdout for the obsolete
Steady State theory.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 04:20:26 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1132755561.373122.76090
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sorry, Cliff, but the Steady State idea isn't the only way that the
Universe could have always existed.
Do tell. Aren't up on modern cosmology? The current evidence
is overwhelming that the universe we know (that we live in) had
a definite beginning, the so-called Big Bang, when matter and
the fabric of spacetime itself began (actually, for about the
first 100,000 years or so I think, it was all energy and no
matter). It has been expanding ever since. Never heard of
the Hubble constant, redshifting from distant objects, etc?
Never heard of M-theory? Strings? 11-dimensional manifolds? The Big Bang
created this particular bit of spacetime that we live in in an M-space
which had always existed.
Or another take: ever heard of asymptotic time? The Big Bang was the
beginning of Time itself, therefore the universe as we know it has
existed for all of Time, ie: always.
BTW, IIRC it was the Brit astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who coined
the term Big Bang as a way to try and discredit the idea back
in the '60s. He was about the last holdout for the obsolete
Steady State theory.
I knew that.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 05:34:41 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
clifffreeling@yahoo.com wrote in news:1132755561.373122.76090
Do tell. Aren't up on modern cosmology? The current evidence
is overwhelming that the universe we know (that we live in) had
a definite beginning, the so-called Big Bang, when matter and
the fabric of spacetime itself began (actually, for about the
first 100,000 years or so I think, it was all energy and no
matter). It has been expanding ever since. Never heard of
the Hubble constant, redshifting from distant objects, etc?
Never heard of M-theory? Strings? 11-dimensional manifolds? The Big Bang
created this particular bit of spacetime that we live in in an M-space
which had always existed.
You've stepped outside established physics here. This is all simply
conjecture, not backed up by solid evidence to say the least. More
than a few of the world's leading physicists don't give much regard
to string theory.
Or another take: ever heard of asymptotic time? The Big Bang was the
beginning of Time itself, therefore the universe as we know it has
existed for all of Time, ie: always.
Which of course doesn't change the fact that all that is had a definite
beginning.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 06:07:32 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132767281.432387.237020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in news:1132755561.373122.76090
Do tell. Aren't up on modern cosmology? The current evidence
is overwhelming that the universe we know (that we live in) had
a definite beginning, the so-called Big Bang, when matter and
the fabric of spacetime itself began (actually, for about the
first 100,000 years or so I think, it was all energy and no
matter). It has been expanding ever since. Never heard of
the Hubble constant, redshifting from distant objects, etc?
Never heard of M-theory? Strings? 11-dimensional manifolds? The Big
Bang created this particular bit of spacetime that we live in in an
M-space which had always existed.
You've stepped outside established physics here. This is all simply
conjecture, not backed up by solid evidence to say the least. More
than a few of the world's leading physicists don't give much regard
to string theory.
So what? You're *way* outside of anything even remotely resembling
physics when you babble about Intelligent Designers or First Causes.
There is less than no solid evidence backing up any religious version of
cosmology.
Or another take: ever heard of asymptotic time? The Big Bang was the
beginning of Time itself, therefore the universe as we know it has
existed for all of Time, ie: always.
Which of course doesn't change the fact that all that is had a
definite beginning.
Which still means exactly nothing with regard to your First Cause
argument.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 10:22:00 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
So what? You're *way* outside of anything even remotely resembling
physics when you babble about Intelligent Designers or First Causes.
Point out where I have babbled about "Intelligent Designers"
or "First Causes." Your strawman. You initially tried to
claim that there was reason to believe in a universe with
no beginning, and I reminded you that Steady State theory
is dead; the scientific evidence points quite strongly toward
a definite beginning. In apparent desperation, you start
quacking about string theory, and I reminded you that
those ideas are not part of established physics.
There is less than no solid evidence backing up any religious version of
cosmology.
More strawman. I never claimed that there was "solid evidence backing
up any religious version of cosmology," only that there was solid
evidence backing up a definite beginning, with no cause that science
can account for, and probably will never be able to account for.
Which still means exactly nothing with regard to your First Cause
argument.
Read above. You can believe what you want, however.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
24 Nov 2005 12:38:18 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132784520.943748.191820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
So what? You're *way* outside of anything even remotely resembling
physics when you babble about Intelligent Designers or First Causes.
Point out where I have babbled about "Intelligent Designers"
or "First Causes." Your strawman. You initially tried to
claim that there was reason to believe in a universe with
no beginning, and I reminded you that Steady State theory
is dead; the scientific evidence points quite strongly toward
a definite beginning. In apparent desperation, you start
quacking about string theory, and I reminded you that
those ideas are not part of established physics.
So what?
There is less than no solid evidence backing up any religious version
of cosmology.
More strawman. I never claimed that there was "solid evidence backing
up any religious version of cosmology," only that there was solid
evidence backing up a definite beginning, with no cause that science
can account for, and probably will never be able to account for.
So what again?
Which still means exactly nothing with regard to your First Cause
argument.
Read above. You can believe what you want, however.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 07:52:15 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211050912540001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <1132644111.981824.315700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ping"
<nullycrunch@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax and
realise that, your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't
already decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It
doesn't know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is
no past. There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you
don't know what is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely
brilliant. There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Regards
Ping
http://www.pingcreations.nu
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
There is no such thing as "life".
There is just molecules doing what molecules do.
Life is just what we call the behaviors of certain specific arrangements of
molecules.
Can I demonstrate that molecules can arrange themselves in specific
patterns? Yes.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 08:24:05 PM |
|
|
In article <UpOdna5edOl26x7enZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@io.com>, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211050912540001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <1132644111.981824.315700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ping"
<nullycrunch@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax and
realise that, your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't
already decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It
doesn't know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is
no past. There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you
don't know what is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely
brilliant. There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Regards
Ping
http://www.pingcreations.nu
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
There is no such thing as "life".
There is just molecules doing what molecules do.
Life is just what we call the behaviors of certain specific arrangements of
molecules.
Can I demonstrate that molecules can arrange themselves in specific
patterns? Yes.
If you owned a cat or dog--would you be able to determine whether the
can or dog was dead?
I should note that most people could easily determine whether or not a cat
or dog was dead.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 12:47:17 AM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211051224050001@pm4-broad-33.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <UpOdna5edOl26x7enZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@io.com>, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211050912540001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <1132644111.981824.315700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ping"
<nullycrunch@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have
the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens
hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax
and
realise that, your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't
already decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It
doesn't know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is
no past. There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you
don't know what is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely
brilliant. There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Regards
Ping
http://www.pingcreations.nu
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
There is no such thing as "life".
There is just molecules doing what molecules do.
Life is just what we call the behaviors of certain specific arrangements
of
molecules.
Can I demonstrate that molecules can arrange themselves in specific
patterns? Yes.
If you owned a cat or dog--would you be able to determine whether the
can or dog was dead?
Live and dead are just words to describe behaviors of collections of
molecules. If the dog and the cat displayed behaviors that we call "alive"
then we call it alive.
I should note that most people could easily determine whether or not a cat
or dog was dead.
So can I. I simply observe its behavior.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 09:29:58 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:24:05 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2211051224050001@pm4-broad-33.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <UpOdna5edOl26x7enZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@io.com>, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2211050912540001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <1132644111.981824.315700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ping"
<nullycrunch@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax and
realise that, your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't
already decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It
doesn't know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is
no past. There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you
don't know what is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely
brilliant. There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Regards
Ping
http://www.pingcreations.nu
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
There is no such thing as "life".
There is just molecules doing what molecules do.
Life is just what we call the behaviors of certain specific arrangements of
molecules.
Can I demonstrate that molecules can arrange themselves in specific
patterns? Yes.
If you owned a cat or dog--would you be able to determine whether the
can or dog was dead?
I should note that most people could easily determine whether or not a cat
or dog was dead.
The cat or dog died because certain processes ceased. The
self-sustaining biochemical reaction that is often called 'living' does
stop at times, but it also splits off into new groupings, called
organisms and children.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 11:40:03 AM |
|
|
(Jason) suddenly spluttered:
has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
The question itself is a lie. Google "Malebolge", it's your afterlife.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jericho" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 07:02:16 PM |
|
|
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
I believe that life can be created from non-life, but that it takes
the right conditions and the right chemical combinations to occur over
the course of billions of years. Now, being that the human race has
been working with the purposeful combination of chemicals in
experimentation for little more than, say 5 thousand years, I think
we're a little too early in the experiment to call whether it is a
success or failure.
Now, given that creation took 6 days, 7 if you want to count the picnik
afterwards, has any experiment been done to demonstrate the creation of
the universe and all life from a single being, including witness
verification and recreation by a reliable source.
Ask yourself the questions you ask others.
Jerricho
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 08:32:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1132684197.223110.47440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
I believe that life can be created from non-life, but that it takes
the right conditions and the right chemical combinations to occur over
the course of billions of years. Now, being that the human race has
been working with the purposeful combination of chemicals in
experimentation for little more than, say 5 thousand years, I think
we're a little too early in the experiment to call whether it is a
success or failure.
Now, given that creation took 6 days, 7 if you want to count the picnik
afterwards, has any experiment been done to demonstrate the creation of
the universe and all life from a single being, including witness
verification and recreation by a reliable source.
Ask yourself the questions you ask others.
Jerricho
Jerricho,
Thanks for your interesting post.
I won't become an advocate of macro-evolution until a scientist can
prove in an experiment that life can evolve from non-life. It's wonderful
that you appear to be able to know the difference between life and non-life.
Some of the posters are not able to do it. One poster in another thread
actually believes that things like grains of sand and plastic are examples
of "life" due to the atoms.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jericho" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 10:01:40 PM |
|
|
Jason,
Where does another poster state that sand and plastic are examples of
life? The only place I see anything like this is in your own reply to
Ping. Please let me know who posted this, so that I can verify this.
Your own reply to me was very cordial and I would not like to think of
you as a one who would misrepresent facts.
Jerricho
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 09:26:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:32:49 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2211051232490001@pm4-broad-33.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <1132684197.223110.47440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
I believe that life can be created from non-life, but that it takes
the right conditions and the right chemical combinations to occur over
the course of billions of years. Now, being that the human race has
been working with the purposeful combination of chemicals in
experimentation for little more than, say 5 thousand years, I think
we're a little too early in the experiment to call whether it is a
success or failure.
Now, given that creation took 6 days, 7 if you want to count the picnik
afterwards, has any experiment been done to demonstrate the creation of
the universe and all life from a single being, including witness
verification and recreation by a reliable source.
Ask yourself the questions you ask others.
Jerricho
Jerricho,
Thanks for your interesting post.
I won't become an advocate of macro-evolution until a scientist can
prove in an experiment that life can evolve from non-life.
That's your excuse today. What will your excuse be when the experiment
that you are looking for is done? I guarantee that you will find some
way to weasel out of it, just as you weaseled out of your claim that you
would become an advocate of macro-evolution (whatever that means) when
scientists could show that life could arise from non-life. You've
demonstrated bad faith and dishonety.
It's wonderful
that you appear to be able to know the difference between life and non-life.
You don't.
Some of the posters are not able to do it. One poster in another thread
actually believes that things like grains of sand and plastic are examples
of "life" due to the atoms.
What nonsense. Living organisms all gather their ability to continue the
process through the use of external energy sources. Plants get their
energy from sources that are not and have not been living. Many animals
get their energy from sources that have been dead for a while.
Non-living molecules are routinely absorbed into living things.
You haven't said so, but you appear to think there is some mystical
difference between living and non-living. There isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jericho" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 09:51:06 PM |
|
|
I tend to agree with David on this, in that the difference between life
and non-life are inconsiquential (my apologies if I'm off track). Just
as the protein chains that were created through chemical reactions
eventually were used in chemical reactions that became self sustaining,
we are nothing more than a massive set of chemical reactions.
What is "your" definition of alive, since it seems so important to you.
I say the sun is alive, because it is a massive set of nuclear
reactions (a reasonable substitute given the scale), is self
sustaining, reacts to outside influence, has a set period of "life",
and will eventually die.
The ocean is alive and its components are the water, creatures, and
plants in it. It is affected by outside influence and evolves over
time. These are just two examples of the life of non-living entities.
I can come up with more is needed. Now what is your definition of
alive and what makes is necessary for "god" to have created it?
Jerricho
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 11:00:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:26:08 -0600, David Jensen wrote
(in article <vp27o1tdqag8a05g7vsuhpr4t0oragkmm9@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:32:49 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2211051232490001@pm4-broad-33.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <1132684197.223110.47440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ping,
Since you are against intelligent design,
do you believe that life can evolve from non-life?
If so, has an experiment ever been done to demostrate that
life can evolve from non-life?
Jason
I believe that life can be created from non-life, but that it takes
the right conditions and the right chemical combinations to occur over
the course of billions of years. Now, being that the human race has
been working with the purposeful combination of chemicals in
experimentation for little more than, say 5 thousand years, I think
we're a little too early in the experiment to call whether it is a
success or failure.
Now, given that creation took 6 days, 7 if you want to count the picnik
afterwards, has any experiment been done to demonstrate the creation of
the universe and all life from a single being, including witness
verification and recreation by a reliable source.
Ask yourself the questions you ask others.
Jerricho
Jerricho,
Thanks for your interesting post.
I won't become an advocate of macro-evolution until a scientist can
prove in an experiment that life can evolve from non-life.
That's your excuse today. What will your excuse be when the experiment
that you are looking for is done? I guarantee that you will find some
way to weasel out of it, just as you weaseled out of your claim that you
would become an advocate of macro-evolution (whatever that means) when
scientists could show that life could arise from non-life. You've
demonstrated bad faith and dishonety.
Personally I want Jason to remain a creationist, he is one of the best
examples of such a creature that can be found. As such he is more likely to
cause many of those who are (at least semi-rational) creationists to want
nothing to do with ID. (Much as happened in Dover, PA. and the dumping of 8
of the 9 school board members there.)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"Your god wears fuzzy, pink, bunny slippers."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
22 Nov 2005 11:21:08 PM |
|
|
Harry F. Leopold wrote:
Personally I want Jason to remain a creationist, he is one of the best
examples of such a creature that can be found. As such he is more likely to
cause many of those who are (at least semi-rational) creationists to want
nothing to do with ID. (Much as happened in Dover, PA. and the dumping of 8
of the 9 school board members there.)
But "creationism" or giving young students more than the usual
atheistic
brand of evolution to think about in school is catching on apparently.
Not been keeping up?
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
24 Nov 2005 05:36:12 PM |
|
|
<clifffreeling@yahoo.com> wrote:
But "creationism" is catching on apparently.
So is the bird flu...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 12:45:11 AM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2005 15:21:08 -0800, in alt.atheism
clifffreeling@yahoo.com wrote in
<1132701668.814462.213130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Harry F. Leopold wrote:
Personally I want Jason to remain a creationist, he is one of the best
examples of such a creature that can be found. As such he is more likely to
cause many of those who are (at least semi-rational) creationists to want
nothing to do with ID. (Much as happened in Dover, PA. and the dumping of 8
of the 9 school board members there.)
But "creationism" or giving young students more than the usual atheistic
brand of evolution to think about in school is catching on apparently.
Not been keeping up?
Yes, I've kept up with the lies of irrational theists who keep accusing
scientists of being atheists, just because they discover another fact
that shows that the claims made by the theists are inaccurate.
Please, tell me where your religion demands that you lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 02:11:26 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
Yes, I've kept up with the lies of irrational theists who keep accusing
scientists of being atheists, just because they discover another fact
that shows that the claims made by the theists are inaccurate.
Please, tell me where your religion demands that you lie.
I can't speak for others. I belong to no church and am not
part of any agenda, but for an atheist to insinuate that
only the religious lie and have biased minds is ludicrous.
A lot of things some theists believe are inaccurate, but
that doesn't mean there is no God. Unfortunately, it's
usually the ones on the fringe who get the coverage.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 02:29:31 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2005 06:11:26 -0800, in alt.atheism
clifffreeling@yahoo.com wrote in
<1132755086.087943.282760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
Yes, I've kept up with the lies of irrational theists who keep accusing
scientists of being atheists, just because they discover another fact
that shows that the claims made by the theists are inaccurate.
Please, tell me where your religion demands that you lie.
I can't speak for others. I belong to no church and am not
part of any agenda, but for an atheist to insinuate that
only the religious lie and have biased minds is ludicrous.
I did not, but I have never seen anyone but a theist of a certain type
accuse scientists of being atheists. Such false claims include the one I
responded to: "But "creationism" or giving young students more than the
usual atheistic brand of evolution to think about in school is catching
on apparently." Evolution has nothing to do with either theism or
atheism. Claiming that there is such a thing as an atheistic brand of
evolution is silly and unsupportable.
A lot of things some theists believe are inaccurate, but
that doesn't mean there is no God. Unfortunately, it's
usually the ones on the fringe who get the coverage.
Well, if any evidence for any of the gods ever turns up, I'll consider
it. Until then, I'll pay attention to real problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 03:04:30 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
I did not, but I have never seen anyone but a theist of a certain type
accuse scientists of being atheists.
I have never accused scientists of being atheists. I am a scientist.
I have know more than a few Christian scientists. In fact, I'd
guess that the atheist physicists and astronomers I've known
are in the minority.
Such false claims include the one I
responded to: "But "creationism" or giving young students more than the
usual atheistic brand of evolution to think about in school is catching
on apparently." Evolution has nothing to do with either theism or
atheism. Claiming that there is such a thing as an atheistic brand of
evolution is silly and unsupportable.
Okay, maybe a bad choice of words on my part. I ain't always perfect.
I personally believe that this whole subject should just be lightly
skimmed
over for kids anyway. It's causing too much disruption at the present
time.
When I was a kid, I don't remember being taught much about evolution
at all. I remember being presented with the current theories of the
universe (Steady State and Big Bang), but it was pretty brief. The
evidence for evolution is strong, but there are still some real
problems
with it, especially pertaining to humans I think, but this is not my
field.
In my mind, God and evolution can co-exist.
Well, if any evidence for any of the gods ever turns up, I'll consider
it. Until then, I'll pay attention to real problems.
There will never be "evidence" for God, in the way you're thinking.
Belief in God is something a person feels. Some, like you for
instance,
just don't have it, obviously. I would think that any intelligent
atheist
would have to admit that there are definite hints of God, but most of
you have a lot of bias and baggage from life experiences that causes
you to greatly shun any such ideas, always claiming to need "evidence,"
which will never be there, as I said.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: There is no intelligent design. It's all an accident. |
23 Nov 2005 04:52:01 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2005 07:04:30 -0800, wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
I did not, but I have never seen anyone but a theist of a certain type
accuse scientists of being atheists.
I have never accused scientists of being atheists. I am a scientist.
I have know more than a few Christian scientists. In fact, I'd
guess that the atheist physicists and astronomers I've known
are in the minority.
Such false claims include the one I
responded to: "But "creationism" or giving young students more than the
usual atheistic brand of evolution to think about in school is catching
on apparently." Evolution has nothing to do with either theism or
atheism. Claiming that there is such a thing as an atheistic brand of
evolution is silly and unsupportable.
Okay, maybe a bad choice of words on my part. I ain't always perfect.
I personally believe that this whole subject should just be lightly
skimmed
over for kids anyway. It's causing too much disruption at the present
time.
When I was a kid, I don't remember being taught much about evolution
at all. I remember being presented with the current theories of the
universe (Steady State and Big Bang), but it was pretty brief. The
evidence for evolution is strong, but there are still some real
problems
with it, especially pertaining to humans I think, but this is not my
field.
In my mind, God and evolution can co-exist.
Well, if any evidence for any of the gods ever turns up, I'll consider
it. Until then, I'll pay attention to real problems.
There will never be "evidence" for God, in the way you're thinking.
Belief in God is something a person feels. Some, like you for
instance,
just don't have it, obviously. I would think that any intelligent
atheist
would have to admit that there are definite hints of God, but most of
you have a lot of bias and baggage from life experiences that causes
you to greatly shun any such ideas, always claiming to need "evidence,"
which will never be there, as I said.
There's no evidence for an infinity of ideas. Seriously considering
them would take more time than there is in the universe.
Not asking much, are you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
