| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZilentNoise" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2007 08:51:26 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was
to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write
its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great
divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of
evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of
the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
.
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: natural selection or........ |
20 Jun 2007 07:42:05 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
sites and their bibles.
BTW... he *IS* a creationist. I checked a few days ago and the WTS is still
teaching the creation account as found in Genesis. The only difference is
they believe it took 7,000 years instead of 7 days.
The above is an outright lie. However it is easier for some dolts here
on Usenet to believe in lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?=" |
|
| Title: Re: natural selection or........ |
20 Jun 2007 08:17:54 PM |
|
|
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:xPjei.4174$lY5.4048@trnddc07...
Michael Gray wrote:
sites and their bibles.
BTW... he *IS* a creationist. I checked a few days ago and the WTS is
still teaching the creation account as found in Genesis. The only
difference is they believe it took 7,000 years instead of 7 days.
The above is an outright lie. However it is easier for some dolts here on
Usenet to believe in lies.
You're a habitually lying psycho jabbers. They're still teaching that one
day is as 1000 years to Jehovah and 1000 years as one day. Therefore
creation took 7000 years. They would be considered young earth
creationists. They do not teach the theory of evolution nor mention the
evidence for same. If the GB once again got "new light" straight from
Jehovah's mouth, my friend has not heard about it.
--
SA........
http://silentlambs.org
http://www.cultwatch.com/jw.html
www.freeminds.org
http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: natural selection or........ |
21 Jun 2007 05:59:59 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jun, 02:17, ~ S=E4bl=EB ~ <Sable...@gmail.com> wrote:
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:xPjei.4174$lY5.4048@trnddc07...
Michael Gray wrote:
sites and their bibles.
BTW... he *IS* a creationist. I checked a few days ago and the WTS is
still teaching the creation account as found in Genesis. The only
difference is they believe it took 7,000 years instead of 7 days.
The above is an outright lie. However it is easier for some dolts here =
on
Usenet to believe in lies.
You're a habitually lying psycho jabbers. They're still teaching that one
day is as 1000 years to Jehovah and 1000 years as one day. Therefore
creation took 7000 years. They would be considered young earth
creationists. They do not teach the theory of evolution nor mention the
evidence for same. If the GB once again got "new light" straight from
Jehovah's mouth, my friend has not heard about it.
I think that is not quite accurate. The sources I have read state that
JW creation has each Genesis day being 7000 years long, not 1000
years. We are still living in the seventh day when God rested, the
last 1000 years or so of which should be Judgement Day. There was some
obscure justification about the book of Daniel as to why the days were
7000 years not 1000 years but I don't remember it. Also the Earth was
sitting around for millions of years before all this got started. So
it is still belief that the Genesis creation account is true, subject
to their peculiar interpretation. All life forms came about through
special creation, and in the order given. Apparently this makes them
old-Earth, day-age creationists.
Of course, things may have changed. This was more than a week ago.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: =Darwin believed= |
21 Jun 2007 06:31:33 PM |
|
|
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.
Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
21 Jun 2007 11:56:56 PM |
|
|
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:pTDei.4370$lY5.357@trnddc07...
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.
Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 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.
And advancing knowledge changed all of that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
22 Jun 2007 04:34:53 PM |
|
|
On Jun 21, 6:31 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
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.
Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 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.
Did you *really* think we didn't know that?
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges. Now how about actually proving
you can respond to questions and challenges with supported answers?
Once again, what is *your* position and what science do you have that
supports it?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
22 Jun 2007 08:35:36 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:31 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
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.
Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 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.
Did you *really* think we didn't know that?
only you
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
23 Jun 2007 05:45:37 PM |
|
|
On Jun 22, 8:35 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:31 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
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.
Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 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.
Did you *really* think we didn't know that?
only you
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
I have specifically asked you, repeatedly, to state what your position
is, and to support it with scientific evidence. Are you admitting
that you cannot do that? Or are you admitting that you lied when you
stated you are not a creationist?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentRook" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
23 Jun 2007 06:16:31 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 22, 8:35 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:31 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
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.
Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 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.
Did you *really* think we didn't know that?
only you
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
I have specifically asked you, repeatedly, to state what your position
is, and to support it with scientific evidence.
My position right now, I am sitting down typing on a key board. People
do this every day, it is observed, it can be falsified, and tested
independently. Evolution mans origin can be not. And old Man siting in a
throne snaping his fingers and life bloom thru the universe neither.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentRook" |
|
| Title: the Budikaka pardigim; Is evolution really scientific? |
23 Jun 2007 08:36:47 PM |
|
|
The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on
those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the
theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if
the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method
followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no
clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing
nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.
Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Demonstrates That His Intellect is as Limited as His Education. |
24 Jun 2007 01:47:19 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 8:36 pm, ZilentRook <ZilentRo...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens;
Actual evolution has been observed in the wild and in the lab.
Various aspects of the Theory of Evolution have been observed in the
wild, in the lab, in the fossil record, in biochemistry, in
comparative anatomy, in geology, and in genetics.
Has any aspect of creation been observed? No!
based on
those observations, form a theory as to what may be true;
The Theory of Evolution formed by Darwin and supported by almost 150
years of solid science from people of all faiths all over the world.
Has any science supported creation in that time period? No.
test the
theory by further observations and by experiments;
Almost 150 years of testing completed.
Has creation pursued any kind of scientific testing? No.
and watch to see if
the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
Predictions fulfilled.
Any creation predictions filled? No.
Is this the method
followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Yes. Is it followed by creaitonists or ID advocates? No.
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no
clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing
nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.
Scientists do not know how that happened."-The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
This isn't evolution, this is abiogenesis. I'm sorry you're too
fundamentally stupid to know the difference, but that's no surprise to
any of us in alt.atheism. However, here is a tiny smattering of the
evidence that has been discovered over the last few years and decades:
The basis of abiogenesis is organic chemistry. Is this found
naturally or not? Well, yes it is, since the basic building blocks of
life are "grown" in space:
"A team of NASA exobiology researchers revealed today organic
chemicals that play a crucial role in the chemistry of life are common
in space."
http://tinyurl.com/9bfah
In other words, not only do these precursors to life exist naturally,
they are common.
Experiments have shown that such chemistry occurs right here on Earth
- or it did in prebiotic atmospheric conditions that geologists have
shown existed on Earth several billion years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
Could "locally grown chemistry" have started life?
"A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Could they come to Earth on meteors and comets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
Could they survive the impact?
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
Could they congegate in sufficient undisturbed volume to actually make
a start on life?
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670
Where could these molecules collect together?
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Can they form "boundary structures" similar to cell walls?
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
But can this actually work in practice?
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Can molecules mimic life?
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
How complex would the first cell need to be?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
The smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u
J. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
In this same time period, here's what the "science" of creation has
revealed, between the quotes on the next line:
" "
Case closed.
If you ever actually get any positive science supporting your
creationist claims, please post it. Otherwise all you're reduced to
is what you've demonstrated here:
1. You're a liar. You are a creationist but do not have the guts to
admit to it because you know that the moment you do, your position
will be shredded.
2. You're a hypocrite. No matter how much evidence you're presented
with that offers solid scientific support for evolution you demand
ever more whilst being unable to offer a single shred of it yourself.
3. You're a coward. You're too cowardly to even pretend you can
offer an alternative to evolution, and every time what you do post is
challenged or disproven, you run away from it and post something else
etc. ad nauseam.
4. You're vacuous. You cannot find any science to overturn
evolution, nor can you offer a shred of it to support your own idiotic
position.
It, like you, really is that simple.
I'm done with you. Next please....
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentCastle" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Demonstrates That His Intellect is as Limited as HisEducation. |
24 Jun 2007 03:40:24 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:36 pm, ZilentRook <ZilentRo...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens;
Actual evolution has been observed in the wild and in the lab.
Evolution as the origin of man has not. Not in the wild nor in a lab.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Demonstrates That His Intellect is as Limited as His Education. |
24 Jun 2007 04:51:20 PM |
|
|
"ZilentCastle" <ZilentCastlet@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:YEAfi.463$w2.426@trnddc01...
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:36 pm, ZilentRook <ZilentRo...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens;
Actual evolution has been observed in the wild and in the lab.
Evolution as the origin of man has not. Not in the wild nor in a lab.
Not true, Jabbers. We've seen you devolve more and more
every time you write your nonsense in alt.atheism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentCastle" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Demonstrates That His Intellect is as Limited as HisEducation. |
24 Jun 2007 04:53:52 PM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"ZilentCastle" <ZilentCastlet@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:YEAfi.463$w2.426@trnddc01...
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:36 pm, ZilentRook <ZilentRo...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens;
Actual evolution has been observed in the wild and in the lab.
Evolution as the origin of man has not. Not in the wild nor in a lab.
Not true, Jabbers. We've seen you devolve more and more
every time you write your nonsense in alt.atheism.
There is no scientific evidence to your claim. And there lies the
problem with lack of evidence, you make them up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Proves Evolution |
24 Jun 2007 01:34:41 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 6:16 pm, ZilentRook <ZilentRo...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 22, 8:35 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:31 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
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.
Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 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.
Did you *really* think we didn't know that?
only you
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
I have specifically asked you, repeatedly, to state what your position
is, and to support it with scientific evidence.
My position right now, I am sitting down typing on a key board. People
do this every day, it is observed, it can be falsified, and tested
independently. Evolution mans origin can be not. And old Man siting in a
throne snaping his fingers and life bloom thru the universe neither.
Thanks for proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt by showing how
you can evolve from a chicken to a jackass and back again.
Case closed.
If you ever actually get any positive science supporting your
creationist claims, please post it. Otherwise all you're reduced to
is what you've demonstrated here:
1. You're a liar. You are a creationist but do not have the guts to
admit to it because you know that the moment you do, your position
will be shredded.
2. You're a hypocrite. No matter how much evidence you're presented
with that offers solid scientific support for evolution you demand
ever more whilst being unable to offer a single shred of it yourself.
3. You're a coward. You're too cowardly to even pretend you can
offer an alternative to evolution, and every time what you do post is
challenged or disproven, you run away from it and post something else
etc. ad nauseam.
4. You're vacuous. You cannot find any science to overturn
evolution, nor can you offer a shred of it to support your own idiotic
position.
It, like you, really is that simple.
I'm done with you. Next please....
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentCastle" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Proves Evolution |
24 Jun 2007 03:39:17 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:16 pm, ZilentRook <ZilentRo...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 22, 8:35 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:31 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
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.
Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 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.
Did you *really* think we didn't know that?
only you
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
I have specifically asked you, repeatedly, to state what your position
is, and to support it with scientific evidence.
My position right now, I am sitting down typing on a key board. People
do this every day, it is observed, it can be falsified, and tested
independently. Evolution mans origin can be not. And old Man siting in a
throne snaping his fingers and life bloom thru the universe neither.
Thanks for proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt by showing how
you can evolve from a chicken to a jackass and back again.
Case closed.
In your case it was never open. There is no demonstrable evidence that I
evolved from chicken to jackass. If this is your evidence of evolution,
please return to grade school.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Proves Evolution |
28 Jun 2007 01:42:13 PM |
|
|
ZilentCastle wrote:
In your case it was never open. There is no demonstrable evidence that I
evolved from chicken to jackass. If this is your evidence of evolution,
please return to grade school.
You're right. You started at jackass and have stayed there ever since.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
23 Jun 2007 10:39:05 AM |
|
|
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Budikka666 wrote:
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
How many JWs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
23 Jun 2007 10:58:43 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Budikka666 wrote:
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
How many JWs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
2
next question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
23 Jun 2007 11:52:11 AM |
|
|
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Budikka666 wrote:
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
How many JWs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
2
What's the 2nd one needed for?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentRook" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
23 Jun 2007 01:26:18 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Budikka666 wrote:
But you've provided plenty of evidence that you know how to *avoid*
addressing questions and challenges.
ask a real question.
How many JWs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
2
What's the 2nd one needed for?
moral support
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
23 Jun 2007 02:50:40 PM |
|
|
ZilentRook <ZilentRookt@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
ask a real question.
How many JWs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
2
What's the 2nd one needed for?
moral support
Why's that?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentRook" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
23 Jun 2007 05:38:07 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentRook <ZilentRookt@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
ask a real question.
How many JWs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
2
What's the 2nd one needed for?
moral support
Why's that?
why not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
24 Jun 2007 05:09:19 PM |
|
|
On 23 Jun, 20:50, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
ZilentRook <ZilentRo...@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net> wrote in alt.atheism
ask a real question.
How many JWs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
2
What's the 2nd one needed for?
moral support
Why's that?
--
Elroy Williswww.elroysemporium.com
They seem to seldom travel in less than groups of two. Often seem to
have a kid in a buggy too around here. I don't know if they each have
their own kid or if there is a pool of them that they all share.
Andy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
21 Jun 2007 06:46:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:31:33 GMT, ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote:
Darwin believed that you are an idiot, Jabbers. And I agree with him.
<G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
21 Jun 2007 07:42:39 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:31:33 GMT, ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote:
Darwin believed that you are an idiot, Jabbers. And I agree with him.
<G>
talking to the dead now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
21 Jun 2007 08:43:39 PM |
|
|
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:3WEei.4373$lY5.2856@trnddc07...
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:31:33 GMT, ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote:
Darwin believed that you are an idiot, Jabbers. And I agree with him.
<G>
talking to the dead now?
Are you telling us you died and are still posting to Usenet,..... from the
grave? You tried pulling this once before and didn't get away with it. You
need to stop putting that metal spaghetti strainer on your head and take
your anti-seizure meds on time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: =Darwin believed= |
21 Jun 2007 07:44:42 PM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
ZilentKnight <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in
news:ZPDei.4368$lY5.231@trnddc07:
Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that eventually
the
descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.
However, the changes dog breeders can produce often result from losses
in gene function. For example, the dachshund’s small size is caused by
a
failure of normal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism.
While the word “species” is used frequently, it should be noted that
this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the
much
more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the
evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a
“kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.
pitbull-> dog.
who gives a ***** what kind of idiocy is given in the bible?
Darwin your Prophet did.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?=" |
|
| Title: Re: natural selection or........ |
21 Jun 2007 08:40:04 PM |
|
|
"Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1182466799.380456.255000@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Jun, 02:17, ~ Säblë ~ <Sable...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're a habitually lying psycho jabbers. They're still teaching that one
day is as 1000 years to Jehovah and 1000 years as one day. Therefore
creation took 7000 years. They would be considered young earth
creationists. They do not teach the theory of evolution nor mention the
evidence for same. If the GB once again got "new light" straight from
Jehovah's mouth, my friend has not heard about it.
I think that is not quite accurate. The sources I have read state that
JW creation has each Genesis day being 7000 years long, not 1000
years.
== That doesn't surprise me since they constantly change what they believe.
They call it "new light" from Jehovah. However I spoke to the JW only a
little over a week ago.
We are still living in the seventh day when God rested, the
last 1000 years or so of which should be Judgement Day. There was some
obscure justification about the book of Daniel as to why the days were
7000 years not 1000 years but I don't remember it. Also the Earth was
sitting around for millions of years before all this got started. So
it is still belief that the Genesis creation account is true, subject
to their peculiar interpretation. All life forms came about through
special creation, and in the order given. Apparently this makes them
old-Earth, day-age creationists.
Of course, things may have changed. This was more than a week ago.
== Yep! ;-)
--
SA.........
Jehovah God Himself.....
And the Lord God of Israel spoke to the man Santana, "Ye be steeped in
iniquity, and ye revel in sinfulness, and every form of perversion is
a thing of delight to thee. Thou shall be allowed your allotted time,
and then I shall smite thee grievously, and cast thee into the lake of
fire together with thine Master, Lucifer, where ye shall find eternal
damnation together."
But the man Santana known as Jabriol was one of Jehovah's Witnesses,
and so did not fear God, and worshiped demons, and continued in his
wicked ways.
~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~ * ~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: natural selection or........ |
21 Jun 2007 06:17:44 PM |
|
|
Andy W wrote:
I think that is not quite accurate. The sources I have read state that
JW creation has each Genesis day being 7000 years long
buuuuuuuuuuuzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
