| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?=" |
| Date: |
07 Dec 2005 05:53:06 PM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Abiogensis? |
ANCIENT Egyptians saw scarab beetles suddenly appear out of the ground,
and believed they were self-produced. But female beetles had laid eggs
in balls of dung and buried them, and the offspring later emerged.
Spontaneous generation? In the fifth century B.C.E. the Greek
philosophers Anaxagoras and Empedocles taught it, and a century later
Aristotle thought that worms and snails were products of putrefaction.
As late as the 17th century C.E. scientists Francis Bacon and William
Harvey taught spontaneous generation
.
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?=" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 06:14:59 PM |
|
|
In the 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only
after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as
examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later
Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur
settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even
Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of
Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the
Creator into a few forms or into one.”—Page 450, Mentor edition.
Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” And this can be
verified with the scientific method.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 08:58:44 PM |
|
|
"Aråchñea" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7WKlf.14288$wF.6803@trnddc08...
In the 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only
after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as
examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later
Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur
settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even
Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of
Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the
Creator into a few forms or into one.”—Page 450, Mentor edition.
Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” And this can be
verified with the scientific method.
So, who gave birth to your god?
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 09:19:02 PM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"Aråchñea" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7WKlf.14288$wF.6803@trnddc08...
In the 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only
after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as
examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later
Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur
settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even
Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of
Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the
Creator into a few forms or into one.”—Page 450, Mentor edition.
Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” And this can be
verified with the scientific method.
So, who gave birth to your god?
regards
Milan
Where did Matter and Energy come from?
When You answer that, then you know who gave birth to God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 10:01:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:19:02 GMT, Cracklin' <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Milan wrote:
"Aråchñea" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7WKlf.14288$wF.6803@trnddc08...
In the 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only
after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as
examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later
Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur
settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even
Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of
Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the
Creator into a few forms or into one.”—Page 450, Mentor edition.
Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” And this can be
verified with the scientific method.
So, who gave birth to your god?
regards
Milan
Where did Matter and Energy come from?
When You answer that, then you know who gave birth to God.
Nice try, Jabbers, but this doesn't sound a bit like the Cracklin' I
know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? Nym-Stealing |
08 Dec 2005 09:31:53 AM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:kvbfp1tcrpobl73g6t052i5gj08jd6k9me@4ax.com...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:19:02 GMT, Cracklin' <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Milan wrote:
"Aråchñea" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7WKlf.14288$wF.6803@trnddc08...
Where did Matter and Energy come from?
When You answer that, then you know who gave birth to God.
Nice try, Jabbers, but this doesn't sound a bit like the Cracklin' I
know.
=====================
He's using my NYM and other people's NYMs to bypass killfiles and make
himself harder to Google. He's also cross-posting to irrelevant NGs in his
quest to destroy them as he did rec.ponds. He's finally gone off the deep
end. If in doubt check the message headers. If you see this:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.206.54
X-Complaints-To:
You know it's him.
CR.........
The JWs showed their true colors
here by posting people's personal information in hopes someone sicker than
there are "takes care of the problem" and silences the person. There is no
other reason to post personal information on Usenet.
See: (Message-ID: <928697419.540.40@news.remarQ.com>#1/1)
This JW posted his own personal information on the net and blamed Carol.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yarrow" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 10:10:53 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:19:02 GMT, Cracklin' <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Milan wrote:
"Aråchñea" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7WKlf.14288$wF.6803@trnddc08...
In the 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only
after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as
examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later
Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur
settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even
Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of
Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the
Creator into a few forms or into one.”—Page 450, Mentor edition.
Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” And this can be
verified with the scientific method.
So, who gave birth to your god?
regards
Milan
Where did Matter and Energy come from?
When You answer that, then you know who gave birth to God.
Nice try, Jabbers, but this doesn't sound a bit like the Cracklin' I
know.
You slept with her????
that is disgusting!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
08 Dec 2005 06:19:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 04:10:53 GMT, Yarrow <Yarrow@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:19:02 GMT, Cracklin' <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Milan wrote:
"Aråchñea" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7WKlf.14288$wF.6803@trnddc08...
In the 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only
after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as
examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later
Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur
settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even
Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of
Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the
Creator into a few forms or into one.”—Page 450, Mentor edition.
Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” And this can be
verified with the scientific method.
So, who gave birth to your god?
regards
Milan
Where did Matter and Energy come from?
When You answer that, then you know who gave birth to God.
Nice try, Jabbers, but this doesn't sound a bit like the Cracklin' I
know.
You slept with her????
Actually, Jabbers, for you that's actually a pretty small leap of
"logic." <G>
that is disgusting!!!!
Says the troll who personifies the word.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 06:40:04 PM |
|
|
In article <7WKlf.14288$wF.6803@trnddc08> =?windows-1252?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?= <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
In the 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only
after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as
examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later
Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur
settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even
Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of
Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the
Creator into a few forms or into one.”—Page 450, Mentor edition.
Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” And this can be
verified with the scientific method.
Pasteur ran his experiments for a few days, not for a few hundred
million years. The applicability of the conclusion is limited by
the scope of the experiment.
-- cary
(incidentally, Darwin added the phrase to the second -- and subsequent --
editions to "conciliate angry clerics". But he also wrote, in
a private letter to Hooker "I have long since regretted that I
truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of
creation, by which I really meant 'apeared' by some wholly
unknown process")
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?=" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 07:16:45 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Pasteur ran his experiments for a few days, not for a few hundred
million years. The applicability of the conclusion is limited by
the scope of the experiment.
And yet nobody holds TOE to the same limitations. However for a few
millions year life still begat life.
-- cary
(incidentally, Darwin added the phrase to the second -- and subsequent --
editions to "conciliate angry clerics". But he also wrote, in
a private letter to Hooker "I have long since regretted that I
truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of
creation, by which I really meant 'apeared' by some wholly
unknown process")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 07:23:01 PM |
|
|
In article <1QLlf.8063$Jg5.6167@trnddc07> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?= <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Pasteur ran his experiments for a few days, not for a few hundred
million years. The applicability of the conclusion is limited by
the scope of the experiment.
And yet nobody holds TOE to the same limitations.
Which limitations? The theory of evolution is not a small laboratory experiment,
in fact it is not an experiment at all It is an attempt to explain consistently the
visible results of billions of experiments which nature performed over for us over
some billions of years.
However for a few millions year life still begat life.
Billions. And it still does. I don't see what this has to do
with your argument.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?=" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 07:55:33 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Which limitations? The theory of evolution is not a small laboratory experiment,
in fact it is not an experiment at all It is an attempt to explain consistently the
visible results of billions of experiments which nature performed over for us over
some billions of years.
An attempt? I can buy that. However the public school system in america
call TOE a fact.
Which is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zhavriol" |
|
| Title: TOBS: FruitFlies anyone? |
07 Dec 2005 09:02:52 PM |
|
|
Creationists have always acknowledged variation within the family
kinds of Genesis chapter one-the degree of variation attested to by
the magazine Science for November 21, 1980: "Species do indeed have a
capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other
characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it
is reflected in an oscillation about a mean." Verifying this
experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly
reproducing creatures, yet, "after 40 years of manipulating the
evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre
changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: FruitFlies anyone? |
08 Dec 2005 10:27:41 AM |
|
|
In article <1134007459.666504.215690@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Zhavriol" <zodriol@gmail.com> writes:
Creationists have always acknowledged variation within the family
kinds of Genesis chapter one-the degree of variation attested to by
the magazine Science for November 21, 1980: "Species do indeed have a
capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other
characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it
is reflected in an oscillation about a mean." Verifying this
experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly
reproducing creatures, yet, "after 40 years of manipulating the
evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre
changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies."
Lessee here.... 3,800,000,000 / 40 == 95,000,000.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Opie" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: FruitFlies anyone? |
08 Dec 2005 08:45:11 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2005 19:02:52 -0800, "Zhavriol"
<zodriol@gmail.com> wrote:
Creationists have always acknowledged
variation within the family
kinds of Genesis chapter one-the degree of
variation attested to by
the magazine Science for November 21, 1980:
"Species do indeed have a
capacity to undergo minor modifications in their
physical and other
characteristics, but this is limited and with a
longer perspective it
is reflected in an oscillation about a mean."
Verifying this
experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of
mutations in rapidly
reproducing creatures, yet, "after 40 years of
manipulating the
evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations
in days, many bizarre
changes have been seen, but fruit flies always
remain fruit flies."
Well, you win the most nonsensical argument of the
day with that one. BTW: What did you expect
fruit flies to become? Monkeys? Christians?
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you to
share your views with them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zhavriol" |
|
| Title: TOBS: FruitFlies anyone? |
07 Dec 2005 09:06:11 PM |
|
|
Creationists have always acknowledged variation within the family
kinds of Genesis chapter one-the degree of variation attested to by
the magazine Science for November 21, 1980: "Species do indeed have a
capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other
characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it
is reflected in an oscillation about a mean." Verifying this
experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly
reproducing creatures, yet, "after 40 years of manipulating the
evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre
changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zhavriol" |
|
| Title: TOBS: FruitFlies anyone? |
07 Dec 2005 09:06:25 PM |
|
|
Creationists have always acknowledged variation within the family
kinds of Genesis chapter one-the degree of variation attested to by
the magazine Science for November 21, 1980: "Species do indeed have a
capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other
characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it
is reflected in an oscillation about a mean." Verifying this
experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly
reproducing creatures, yet, "after 40 years of manipulating the
evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre
changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
08 Dec 2005 10:23:44 AM |
|
|
In article <poMlf.8113$xg1.3946@trnddc03> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?= <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Which limitations? The theory of evolution is not a small laboratory experiment,
in fact it is not an experiment at all It is an attempt to explain consistently the
visible results of billions of experiments which nature performed over for us over
some billions of years.
An attempt? I can buy that. However the public school system in america
call TOE a fact.
Which is it?
If they do, then that is poor teaching. No one who understands science
calls any hypothesis, no matter the degree of confirmatory evidence,
a fact. These are two entirely different things.
Can you quote me some examples?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 08:11:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:55:33 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
Aråchñea <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<poMlf.8113$xg1.3946@trnddc03>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Which limitations? The theory of evolution is not a small laboratory experiment,
in fact it is not an experiment at all It is an attempt to explain consistently the
visible results of billions of experiments which nature performed over for us over
some billions of years.
An attempt? I can buy that. However the public school system in america
call TOE a fact.
Please, tell me where the _theory_ of evolution is called a fact. Tell
me what your statement means. Yes, it is a fact that there is a theory
of evolution. Yes, it is a fact that there is a huge amount of evidence
for evolution. Yes, it is a fact that evidence was used to develop the
theory of evolution by variation and natural selection. Yes, it is a
fact that more information has been gathered to support the theory of
evolution and to improve it. Yes, it is a fact that the theory of
evolution will be improved over time as more facts about evolution are
gathered.
Which is it?
What?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 10:59:44 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:1i5fp1d4sofukf9ou5ki5n1cauj797allm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:55:33 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
Aråchñea <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<poMlf.8113$xg1.3946@trnddc03>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Which limitations? The theory of evolution is not a small laboratory
experiment,
in fact it is not an experiment at all It is an attempt to explain
consistently the
visible results of billions of experiments which nature performed over
for us over
some billions of years.
An attempt? I can buy that. However the public school system in america
call TOE a fact.
Please, tell me where the _theory_ of evolution is called a fact. Tell
me what your statement means. Yes, it is a fact that there is a theory
of evolution. Yes, it is a fact that there is a huge amount of evidence
for evolution. Yes, it is a fact that evidence was used to develop the
theory of evolution by variation and natural selection. Yes, it is a
fact that more information has been gathered to support the theory of
evolution and to improve it. Yes, it is a fact that the theory of
evolution will be improved over time as more facts about evolution are
gathered.
Which is it?
What?
You see folks? They weren't kidding when they said
they have science on their side! :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 08:30:04 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:55:33 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
Aråchñea <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<poMlf.8113$xg1.3946@trnddc03>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Which limitations? The theory of evolution is not a small laboratory experiment,
in fact it is not an experiment at all It is an attempt to explain consistently the
visible results of billions of experiments which nature performed over for us over
some billions of years.
An attempt? I can buy that. However the public school system in america
call TOE a fact.
Yes, it is a fact that there is a huge amount of evidence
for evolution.
The same evidence can be used to demostrate alien terraforming.
Yes, it is a fact that evidence was used to develop the
theory of evolution by variation and natural selection. Yes, it is a
fact that more information has been gathered to support the theory of
evolution and to improve it. Yes, it is a fact that the theory of
evolution will be improved over time as more facts about evolution are
gathered.
Facts such as?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Opie" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 07:47:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:23:01 +0000 (UTC),
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1QLlf.8063$Jg5.6167@trnddc07>
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?=
<invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Pasteur ran his experiments for a few days,
not for a few hundred
million years. The applicability of the
conclusion is limited by
the scope of the experiment.
And yet nobody holds TOE to the same
limitations.
Which limitations? The theory of evolution is not
a small laboratory experiment,
in fact it is not an experiment at all It is an
attempt to explain consistently the
visible results of billions of experiments which
nature performed over for us over
some billions of years.
However for a few millions year life still begat
life.
Billions. And it still does. I don't see what
this has to do
with your argument.
-- cary
Yeah but, he used the word 'begat' which, in his
mind at least, is enough to make the assertion a
fact.
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you to
share your views with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?=" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
07 Dec 2005 07:56:25 PM |
|
|
Opie wrote:
However for a few millions year life still begat
life.
Billions. And it still does. I don't see what
this has to do
with your argument.
See Header.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zhavriol" |
|
| Title: TOBS: Professor Lipson |
07 Dec 2005 08:27:55 PM |
|
|
Today some still see creation as fitting the facts. J. H. Corner,
Cambridge University botanist and evolutionist, stated: "I still
think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of
special creation." (Contemporary Botanical Thought, 1961, p. 97) In
the Physics Bulletin, May 1980, Professor Lipson reluctantly said:
"We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable
explanation is creation."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Abiogensis? |
08 Dec 2005 10:31:45 AM |
|
|
In article <dpMlf.8114$xg1.3982@trnddc03> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?= <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Opie wrote:
However for a few millions year life still begat
life.
Billions. And it still does. I don't see what
this has to do
with your argument.
See Header.
I see the header. I still do not see what the unremarkable
biological observation that "for a few millions year life still begat
life" has to do with it.
-- cry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: TOBS: Mutations ; comments by Bengelsdorf |
07 Dec 2005 08:01:03 PM |
|
|
Mutations are changes in the genetic material and produce new
inheritable characteristics in the organism. The vast majority of the
small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They are
believed to contribute to the degeneration of organisms and are
responsible for many diseases and malformations. Nevertheless,
evolutionists place hope in them as mechanisms of evolution. But they
are found to be inadequate to produce new family kinds. Evolutionist
Bengelsdorf said: “Mutations, involving base changes in genes, can
account for differences between two men . . . But, for various reasons,
they cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles,
birds, and mammals.”
.
|
|
|
| User: "EB" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Mutations ; comments by Bengelsdorf |
08 Dec 2005 12:02:41 PM |
|
|
Cracklin' wrote:
Mutations are changes in the genetic material and produce new
inheritable characteristics in the organism. The vast majority of the
small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They are
believed to contribute to the degeneration of organisms and are
responsible for many diseases and malformations. Nevertheless,
evolutionists place hope in them as mechanisms of evolution. But they
are found to be inadequate to produce new family kinds.
Not true.
Evolutionist
Bengelsdorf said: “Mutations, involving base changes in genes, can
account for differences between two men . . . But, for various reasons,
they cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles,
birds, and mammals.”
And he's right. Mutations are the prime source of variation, but they do
not account for overall evolution. Nature does that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Mutations ; comments by Bengelsdorf |
07 Dec 2005 08:25:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:01:03 GMT, in alt.atheism , Cracklin'
<invalid@invalid.invalid> in <ztMlf.8118$xg1.1265@trnddc03> wrote:
Mutations are changes in the genetic material and produce new
inheritable characteristics in the organism. The vast majority of the
small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They are
believed to contribute to the degeneration of organisms and are
responsible for many diseases and malformations. Nevertheless,
evolutionists place hope in them as mechanisms of evolution. But they
are found to be inadequate to produce new family kinds. Evolutionist
Bengelsdorf said: “Mutations, involving base changes in genes, can
account for differences between two men . . . But, for various reasons,
they cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles,
birds, and mammals.”
Who was he? Where did he write this? Where did you read it? And does
he discuss the "various reasons"?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Mutations ; TROLL ALERT |
07 Dec 2005 08:46:03 PM |
|
|
You're replying to Jabriol (from alt.religion.jehovahs-witn) using my NYMS.
It's the only way he can get past your killfiles.
From: Cracklin' <invalid@invalid.invalid> JABRIOL
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.206.54
X-Complaints-To:
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ar=E5ch=F1ea?= JABRIOL
<invalid@invalid.invalid>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.206.54
X-Complaints-To:
CR...........
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:va6fp1tqusjj4eoeaua39qt7bgk8rplu0i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:01:03 GMT, in alt.atheism , Cracklin' (JABRIOL)
<invalid@invalid.invalid> in <ztMlf.8118$xg1.1265@trnddc03> wrote:
Mutations are changes in the genetic material and produce new
inheritable characteristics in the organism...........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gantz" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Mutations ; TROLL ALERT |
07 Dec 2005 08:54:02 PM |
|
|
Cracklin' wrote:
You're replying to Jabriol (from alt.religion.jehovahs-witn) using my NYMS.
It's the only way he can get past your killfiles.
And what make you think that you are that important, that you reside in
no Kill file at all?
In any case, People will just add Cracklin' to thier killfile and you,
your hatred lies will disappear.
Just like you have disaapeared from Rec.Ponds.
The Job is done in rec.ponds. it is no more. AFN now seems to be the
target.
bye
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Mutations ; TROLL ALERT |
08 Dec 2005 06:14:10 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2005 18:54:02 -0800, "Gantz" <darth.gantz@gmail.com> wrote:
Cracklin' wrote:
You're replying to Jabriol (from alt.religion.jehovahs-witn) using my NYMS.
It's the only way he can get past your killfiles.
And what make you think that you are that important, that you reside in
no Kill file at all?
In any case, People will just add Cracklin' to thier killfile and you,
your hatred lies will disappear.
Just like you have disaapeared from Rec.Ponds.
The Job is done in rec.ponds. it is no more. AFN now seems to be the
target.
bye
'Bye, Jabbers.
<PLONK!>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
