| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2005 08:48:09 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Good logic |
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
Science has with God, The "Almighty". He asks one of his new
Christian students to stand and.....
Professor: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
Student : Yes, sir.
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student : Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student : Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God
didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student kepps silence.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is
God good?
Student :Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student : No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student : From...God... originally, yes!
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything.
Correct?
Student : Yes.
Prof: So who created evil? (Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student :Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them? (Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God? God's voice?
Student : No , sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student : No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat,
superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we
don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero
which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no
such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence
of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the
opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's
called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you
would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue
there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God.You are
viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can
measure.Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity
and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either
one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the
fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.Now tell
me, Professor: Do you teach your students that they evolved from a
monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour,
are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a
preacher? (The class is in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's
brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done
so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,Sir. With
all due respect, Sir, how do we can trust your lectures, Sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH.
That is all that keeps things moving & alive........
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic (JABRIOL CAMDEN NJ RACIST) |
07 Feb 2005 09:13:32 AM |
|
|
Linda Lou wrote:
<jabriol@fastmail.fm> (A Creationist and known sociopathic RACIST)
wrote in
message news:1107711395.642177.8750@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I thought it was a theory.. evolution as man origin has not been
observed.
** I thought the bible story was only a myth.. a magical creation
that has
not been observed.
no such thing as a magical creation..
it is speculated. unless you want to call the increase of the
Homo-sexual as speciation... the rest is wishful thinking.
** Like those 25,000 secret pedophiles your Watchtower society had
quietly
hidden away?
are all pedophile homosexuals?
unrelated subject to the thread..........
ssssssssssssssssssnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiippppppppppppppp
.
|
|
|
| User: "~~ P@P" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic (JABRIOL CAMDEN NJ SADIST) |
07 Feb 2005 12:27:54 PM |
|
|
<jabriol@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1107789212.871176.32300@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Linda Lou wrote:
<jabriol@fastmail.fm> (A Creationist and known sociopathic RACIST)
wrote in
message news:1107711395.642177.8750@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I thought it was a theory.. evolution as man origin has not been
observed.
** I thought the bible story was only a myth.. a magical creation
that has
not been observed.
no such thing as a magical creation..
## RIGHT! We evolved from earlier life forms - right Jabbers? :-) Does
the elders at your KH know that? Have you told them there was no CREATION
by their Jehovah?
** Like those 25,000 secret pedophiles your Watchtower society had
quietly
hidden away?
are all pedophile homosexuals?
## Are all Jehovah's Witnesses pedophiles?
unrelated subject to the thread..........
## Unrelated thread. ARJ-W is a NG about the WTS and the harm it does to
people - not about your endless blather concerning evolution/creation we've
been subject to for the past decade. No go service your wife before she
goes off to do the cha cha cha with a real man.
--
Linda Lou...
All trees (like the WTS) can be judged by the fruit (Jabriols) they produce.
===========================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic (JABRIOL CAMDEN NJ RACIST) |
06 Feb 2005 06:56:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:39:03 -0600, "Linda Lou" <P@P> said in
alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
<jabriol@fastmail.fm> (A Creationist and known sociopathic RACIST) wrote in
message news:1107711395.642177.8750@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
like building the bridge in the bearing straight.
You mean the land bridge that existed there until fairly recently
(geologically speaking)?
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 12:48:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
< snip >
like building the bridge in the bearing straight.. all nice on paper.
not gonna happen.
What *are* you talking about?
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
08 Feb 2005 12:20:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:48:49 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote:
< snip >
like building the bridge in the bearing straight.. all nice on paper.
not gonna happen.
What *are* you talking about?
I've seen a few ideas being floated for building a bridge across the
strait. Maybe that's what Jabbers is referring to.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
10 Feb 2005 10:24:45 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:48:49 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote:
< snip >
like building the bridge in the bearing straight.. all nice on paper.
not gonna happen.
What *are* you talking about?
I've seen a few ideas being floated for building a bridge across the
strait. Maybe that's what Jabbers is referring to.
Ah. I thought he was under the impression that the old land bridge had
been built by humans.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
10 Feb 2005 07:11:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:24:45 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
Ah. I thought he was under the impression that the old land bridge had
been built by humans.
Well ... there are still some who believe that it's a myth, so
believing it was built by humans isn't *that* crazy.
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 01:56:23 PM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2005 09:36:35 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2005 15:58:28 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
The scientific magazine Discover
Discover is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
said: "Evolution . . . is not only
under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned
by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study
the fossil record, there is growing dissent."-October 1980, p. 88.
About?
me guess... evolution? TOE?
Your guess ... wrong. There is dissent among paleontologists about
many of the theories for one reason or another. Not a single
paleontologist questions whether evolution happens.
In this case, the dissent is about the RATE at which evolution
proceeds, not about whether it happens. The next lines, after what
you quoted, are:
" from the prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will
center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of
evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of
inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a
tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution
proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two
paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural
History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on
the hare."
Nothing more than the introduction of the theory of punctuated
equilibrium - NOT a dissent of WHETHER evolution occurs, just about
HOW it occurs. Your Watchtower pamphlet quoted the article
dishonestly.
That doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the underlying observations.
what observation exactly..
That allele frequencies change in breeding populations over time.
That species diverge. (Horse-donkey, lion-tiger.) That some
mechanisms cause speciation in a single generation.
Those observations.
Evolution is an
observation. It occurs. Regardless of the dissent about any
particular theory about it.
I thought it was a theory.
No, "the theory of evolution" is really theorieS *about* the
observations of evolution - like punctuated equilibrium. That's ONE
"theory of evolution". Survival of the fittest is another. Evolution
itself is an observed fact. So is speciation.
evolution as man origin has not been observed.
You'll have to come up with a reason man, of all the billions of
species on Earth, is somehow "exempt" from the evolution that affects
ALL other species. How does all the fossil evidence that we evolved
from Java Man, Peking Man, Heidelberg Man, etc., suddenly become
invalid because you don't like the fact - and it is a fact - that
we're just another species of animal, no more "special" than a
cockroach?
Reality doesn't care how you feel about it.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 03:48:03 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 09:36:35 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2005 15:58:28 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
The scientific magazine Discover
Discover is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
said: "Evolution . . . is not only
under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned
by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who
study
the fossil record, there is growing dissent."-October 1980, p.
88.
About?
me guess... evolution? TOE?
Your guess ... wrong. There is dissent among paleontologists about
many of the theories for one reason or another. Not a single
paleontologist questions whether evolution happens.
of course not if they did.. they would be barred, censured, tared and
featthered...
In this case, the dissent is about the RATE at which evolution
proceeds, not about whether it happens. The next lines, after what
you quoted, are:
" from the prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will
center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process
of
evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of
inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a
tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution
proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two
paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural
History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on
the hare."
Nothing more than the introduction of the theory of punctuated
equilibrium - NOT a dissent of WHETHER evolution occurs, just about
HOW it occurs. Your Watchtower pamphlet quoted the article
dishonestly.
in other words, evolution must occure no matter what looney toon theory
we throw in.. the alternative, would be destrcutive to the theory as a
whole..
therefore how intarnation can you calim evolution has been observed
when scientist dont even know how long it took?
That doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the
underlying observations.
what observation exactly..
That allele frequencies change in breeding populations over time.
That species diverge. (Horse-donkey, lion-tiger.) That some
mechanisms cause speciation in a single generation.
2 different subject here. the Liger and the *****, does not happen in
nature. cellular change is limitted. as study with HIV virus has been
done with.. those limitation provide a solution to constrain the
diease.
Those observations.
another circle.. it seem that there is a limit. uncontrol changed in a
cell is called cancer.
Evolution is an
observation. It occurs. Regardless of the dissent about any
particular theory about it.
I thought it was a theory.
No, "the theory of evolution" is really theorieS *about* the
observations of evolution - like punctuated equilibrium. That's ONE
"theory of evolution". Survival of the fittest is another.
Evolution
itself is an observed fact. So is speciation.
Pun-ex has not been observed.. only guessed at. Survival of the fittest
fails, with humans and other primates.
evolution as man origin has not been observed.
You'll have to come up with a reason man, of all the billions of
species on Earth, is somehow "exempt" from the evolution that affects
ALL other species. How does all the fossil evidence that we evolved
from Java Man, Peking Man, Heidelberg Man, etc., suddenly become
invalid because you don't like the fact - and it is a fact - that
we're just another species of animal, no more "special" than a
cockroach?
you gorgot piltodown man. the fossil evidence for Piltdown was accepted
for 50 years..
nobody is disputing these creature did not exist. that they are related
and evolved from another has not be observed, and thus does not pass
the sicentific method.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 04:14:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 09:36:35 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2005 15:58:28 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
The scientific magazine Discover
Discover is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
said: "Evolution . . . is not only
under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned
by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who
study
the fossil record, there is growing dissent."-October 1980, p.
88.
About?
me guess... evolution? TOE?
Your guess ... wrong. There is dissent among paleontologists about
many of the theories for one reason or another. Not a single
paleontologist questions whether evolution happens.
of course not if they did.. they would be barred, censured, tared and
featthered...
In this case, the dissent is about the RATE at which evolution
proceeds, not about whether it happens. The next lines, after what
you quoted, are:
" from the prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will
center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process
of
evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of
inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a
tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution
proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two
paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural
History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on
the hare."
Nothing more than the introduction of the theory of punctuated
equilibrium - NOT a dissent of WHETHER evolution occurs, just about
HOW it occurs. Your Watchtower pamphlet quoted the article
dishonestly.
in other words, evolution must occure no matter what looney toon theory
we throw in.. the alternative, would be destrcutive to the theory as a
whole..
therefore how intarnation can you calim evolution has been observed
when scientist dont even know how long it took?
That doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the
underlying observations.
what observation exactly..
That allele frequencies change in breeding populations over time.
That species diverge. (Horse-donkey, lion-tiger.) That some
mechanisms cause speciation in a single generation.
2 different subject here. the Liger and the *****, does not happen in
nature. cellular change is limitted. as study with HIV virus has been
done with.. those limitation provide a solution to constrain the
diease.
Those observations.
another circle.. it seem that there is a limit. uncontrol changed in a
cell is called cancer.
Evolution is an
observation. It occurs. Regardless of the dissent about any
particular theory about it.
I thought it was a theory.
No, "the theory of evolution" is really theorieS *about* the
observations of evolution - like punctuated equilibrium. That's ONE
"theory of evolution". Survival of the fittest is another.
Evolution
itself is an observed fact. So is speciation.
Pun-ex has not been observed.. only guessed at. Survival of the fittest
fails, with humans and other primates.
evolution as man origin has not been observed.
You'll have to come up with a reason man, of all the billions of
species on Earth, is somehow "exempt" from the evolution that affects
ALL other species. How does all the fossil evidence that we evolved
from Java Man, Peking Man, Heidelberg Man, etc., suddenly become
invalid because you don't like the fact - and it is a fact - that
we're just another species of animal, no more "special" than a
cockroach?
you gorgot piltodown man. the fossil evidence for Piltdown was accepted
for 50 years..
nobody is disputing these creature did not exist. that they are related
and evolved from another has not be observed, and thus does not pass
the sicentific method.
Not true. There are theories that attempt to account for the small
numbers of specimens observed. As new ones are found new evolutionary
trees develop. In this, and many other cases, evolution is inferred
from the evidence - timing by radiologic dating, geologic strata and
plant and animal remains found with the bones. When the right bones are
found, their structure can indicate whether they were capable of speech
and/or walked upright. The knowledge to make these inferences comes from
200 years of research and observation. Evolutionary developments are
observed the same way.
The fact is that your utter ignorance of geology, anatomy and physiology
preclude you from making intelligent comments regarding evolution. You
might also benefit from learning a bit about the scientific method,
because if you understood it, you would not say what you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 09:00:02 PM |
|
|
so trees evolved into.. uh trees??
I see
you also wrote:
" In this, and many other cases, evolution is inferred
from the evidence - timing by radiologic dating, geologic strata and
plant and animal remains found with the bones."
you really have to back to science 101..
you cant inffer, an call it an observational fact. science does not
work that way
evidence is based on the discipline who acclaims it as such. I can used
the same evidence and point toward design, because nothing is concrete
in science... as other have admited.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 12:44:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
< snip >
evidence is based on the discipline who acclaims it as such. I can used
the same evidence and point toward design
Yeah, that's religion for you. You can take pretty much anything and
say, "Goddidit."
because nothing is concrete
in science...
Which is why it works so well. If theories didn't change as new
evidence came to light, then it would be religion, not science.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 09:30:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
so trees evolved into.. uh trees??
I see
you also wrote:
" In this, and many other cases, evolution is inferred
from the evidence - timing by radiologic dating, geologic strata and
plant and animal remains found with the bones."
you really have to back to science 101..
you cant inffer, an call it an observational fact. science does not
work that way
evidence is based on the discipline who acclaims it as such. I can used
the same evidence and point toward design, because nothing is concrete
in science... as other have admited.
I am going to do you the courtesy of calling your peculiar response
utter nonsense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 11:01:02 PM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2005 19:00:02 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
so trees evolved into.. uh trees??
I see
Yep - just like mammals evolved into mammals. Bet you'd be surprised
to see a cat give birth to an elephant, wouldn't you?
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 05:05:07 PM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2005 13:48:03 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 09:36:35 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
me guess... evolution? TOE?
Your guess ... wrong. There is dissent among paleontologists about
many of the theories for one reason or another. Not a single
paleontologist questions whether evolution happens.
of course not if they did.. they would be barred, censured, tared and
featthered...
Your assertion - not worth anything, as usual.
in other words, evolution must occure
No, evolution is an observed phenomenon. It DOES occur.
no matter what looney toon theory
we throw in.. the alternative, would be destrcutive to the theory as a
whole..
Which theory? Punctuated equilibrium? Survival of the fittest?
therefore how intarnation can you calim evolution has been observed
Because it has been. Every baby born is an example of a change in
allele frequencies in a breeding population over time.
when scientist dont even know how long it took?
You don't know how long it takes for an egg to be fertilized?
That doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the
underlying observations.
what observation exactly..
That allele frequencies change in breeding populations over time.
That species diverge. (Horse-donkey, lion-tiger.) That some
mechanisms cause speciation in a single generation.
2 different subject here. the Liger and the *****, does not happen in
nature.
Irrelevant.
cellular change is limitted. as study with HIV virus has been
done with.. those limitation provide a solution to constrain the
diease.
Irrelevant. Allele frequencies change in breeding populations over
time. That's evolution. It's been observed.
Evolution is an
observation. It occurs. Regardless of the dissent about any
particular theory about it.
I thought it was a theory.
No, "the theory of evolution" is really theorieS *about* the
observations of evolution - like punctuated equilibrium. That's ONE
"theory of evolution". Survival of the fittest is another.
Evolution
itself is an observed fact. So is speciation.
Pun-ex has not been observed.
It's a theory. Evolution isn't punk eek, it's an observed fact.
Survival of the fittest fails, with humans and other primates.
No, it actually doesn't. The fittest might now just be those who have
access to the best medical care.
But survival of the fittest is a theory *about* evolution, it's not
evolution itself.
evolution as man origin has not been observed.
You'll have to come up with a reason man, of all the billions of
species on Earth, is somehow "exempt" from the evolution that affects
ALL other species. How does all the fossil evidence that we evolved
from Java Man, Peking Man, Heidelberg Man, etc., suddenly become
invalid because you don't like the fact - and it is a fact - that
we're just another species of animal, no more "special" than a
cockroach?
you gorgot piltodown man. the fossil evidence for Piltdown was accepted
for 50 years..
No, that's not a valid reason that man is exempt from evolution.
nobody is disputing these creature did not exist. that they are related
and evolved from another has not be observed, and thus does not pass
the sicentific method.
Yes, one lifeform evolving into a different lifeform HAS been
observed. You have to show how, if it happens in hundreds of other
species, it can't happen to man. Showing other things - any other
things - is NOT showing how it can't happen to man.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 12:38:13 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2005 15:58:28 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
The scientific magazine Discover
Discover is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
said: "Evolution . . . is not only
under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned
by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study
the fossil record, there is growing dissent."-October 1980, p. 88.
About? (I no longer have my 1980 copies.)
Maybe Jabbers doesn't realize it's been nearly 25 years since that
article was published. He does keep himself pretty insulated from reality.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: " ~~~ P@P" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic - material from 1957 and 1983 LOL!!! |
07 Feb 2005 03:17:27 PM |
|
|
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:36pqsnF55hli7U1@individual.net...
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2005 15:58:28 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
said: "Evolution . . . is not only
under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned
by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study
the fossil record, there is growing dissent."-October 1980, p. 88.
About? (I no longer have my 1980 copies.)
Maybe Jabbers doesn't realize it's been nearly 25 years since that
article was published. He does keep himself pretty insulated from
reality.
===========================
Hey, he was using one from 1957 the other day. I bet he really had to dig
through piles of Creationist websites and literature for that one. :-)
Jabber's only reads Watchtower Society approved material.
--
The Footed Fish....
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:56:15 -0600, (Boydette) wrote:
What its like to be "mind controlled"all your life???? I thought this
was a support group for people damaged by the JWs teachings??......I am
a classic example...learn from me....Boydette
===================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 06:45:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:38:13 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2005 15:58:28 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
The scientific magazine Discover
Discover is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
said: "Evolution . . . is not only
under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned
by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study
the fossil record, there is growing dissent."-October 1980, p. 88.
About? (I no longer have my 1980 copies.)
Maybe Jabbers doesn't realize it's been nearly 25 years since that
article was published. He does keep himself pretty insulated from reality.
As I found (and posted later), it was a discussion of Punk Eek, which
had just been proposed. Of course there would be dissent about a new
theory. The paragraph should have read:
"Punctuated equilibrium . . . is not only unknown by fundamentalist
Christians, but is being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent about punctuated equilibrium."
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 03:25:31 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 14:33:38 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
John Ings wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 06:48:09 -0800, wrote:
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work
Lie. Evolution has been observed many times.
No it hasn't.
There's a difference between your seeing it and sane people seeing it,
jabbers.
There is not scientist or researcher that can verify,
that he has observed on lifeform evolved into another, ever.
There are many who not only can but have.
Nobody has ever observed the evolution of Man from Lucy until now.
But many have observed the evolution of one species to another.
and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour,
Lie again. Yes we can so prove.
how so.
By observing it occurring.
No, he's teaching fact.
not per the scientific method he is not.
The scientific method doesn't require reproduction of occurrence or
direct observation.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,Sir.
Arrant nonsense. The activities of any brain are easily demonstrated.
that was not the question...
misdirection noted.
Yes, the misdirection of "according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says" is noted -
since that's NOT what science says.
Malarkey! No real university professor is that dumb!
he is, if he teaches evolution as a fact...
Things that are observed are fact. People who claim that they aren't
are either idiots or morons. You, Sir, aren't intelligent enough to
be described as either.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "LOVEM N. LEEVEM P@P" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 08:14:59 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:g6ea01dtu2tn1del2gl2ltf7f6e8h7r2dn@4ax.com...
On 4 Feb 2005 14:33:38 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
John Ings wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 06:48:09 -0800, wrote:
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work
Lie. Evolution has been observed many times.
No it hasn't.
There's a difference between your seeing it and sane people seeing it,
jabbers.
There is not scientist or researcher that can verify,
that he has observed on lifeform evolved into another, ever.
There are many who not only can but have.
Nobody has ever observed the evolution of Man from Lucy until now.
But many have observed the evolution of one species to another.
and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour,
Lie again. Yes we can so prove.
how so.
By observing it occurring.
No, he's teaching fact.
not per the scientific method he is not.
The scientific method doesn't require reproduction of occurrence or
direct observation.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,Sir.
Arrant nonsense. The activities of any brain are easily demonstrated.
that was not the question...
misdirection noted.
Yes, the misdirection of "according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says" is noted -
since that's NOT what science says.
Malarkey! No real university professor is that dumb!
he is, if he teaches evolution as a fact...
Things that are observed are fact. People who claim that they aren't
are either idiots or morons. You, Sir, aren't intelligent enough to
be described as either.
=====================
What can we expect from someone who gets his information and education from
the Watchtower Society publications and fundamentalist websites? Jabber's
has been trying to convince people there was a magical creation for 10 years
now. I never saw him convert anyone,... not one person!
--
Owl....
L Perez bleated: BEWARE! there are people on this newsgroup who are only
here to slander and
lie about Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not offer any alternative
organization...
Note: No other organization can even come close to the WTS' record of six,
false-alarm end-of-the world predictions in the 20th century.
(Credit to RLM)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 03:50:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:14:59 -0600, "LOVEM N. LEEVEM" <P@P> wrote:
What can we expect from someone who gets his information and education from
the Watchtower Society publications and fundamentalist websites? Jabber's
has been trying to convince people there was a magical creation for 10 years
now. I never saw him convert anyone,... not one person!
In that time, have you ever seen him explain clearly why he thinks he
isn't a Creationist?
## FACT: There are more horse's asses than there are horses
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 01:19:38 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 14:33:38 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
< snip >
Nobody has ever observed the evolution of Man from Lucy until now.
But many have observed the evolution of one species to another.
Wait. "Until now"? Is Jabba going to act it out for us?
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 06:46:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:19:38 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 14:33:38 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
< snip >
Nobody has ever observed the evolution of Man from Lucy until now.
But many have observed the evolution of one species to another.
Wait. "Until now"? Is Jabba going to act it out for us?
< snip >
No, he already did. He's no more advanced than Sianthropus and his
children are all fully modern.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
04 Feb 2005 06:07:57 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 14:33:38 -0800, wrote:
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)
No real professor would.
would do what.. smile?
Shake his head.
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work
Lie. Evolution has been observed many times.
No it hasn't.
Liar.
There is not scientist or researcher that can verify,
that he has observed on lifeform evolved into another, ever.
Liar.
Nobody has ever observed the evolution of Man from Lucy until now.
But we have observed the evolution of one species to another.
Many times.
and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour,
Lie again. Yes we can so prove.
how so..
Libraries full of evidence.
ah yes.. the failed manpanzee experiment..
Never heard of it.
are you not teaching your opinion, sir?
No, he's teaching fact.
not per the scientific method he is not.
Exactly per the scientific method. You problem is that you don't even
know what evolution is, so you shoot yourself in the foot every time
you babble about it. And you don't have to firm a grip on the
scientific method either.
Are you not a scientist but a
preacher? (The class is in uproar.)
Only in Creationist fiction. Any real professor would tear that
argument to shreds.
then do so...
There never has been a theory that evolution occurs. That evolution
happens is an OBSERVATION. We see it happening. It's the data that the
various theories of evolution seek to explain. Now before you come in
here with your fictions about professors being confounded by students,
do a little honest research and learn what evolution is before you
make claims about it. Do your research somewhere else than in
Jehovah's Witless tracts. Like maybe a real science text?
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's
brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done
so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,Sir.
Arrant nonsense. The activities of any brain are easily demonstrated.
that was not the question...
Yes it was. "So, according to the established rules of empirical,
stable, demonstrable protocol," which would include such things as the
conversation the questioner is having with the professor. Is the
student talking to a computer? A poltergeist?
With
all due respect, Sir, how do we can trust your lectures, Sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his
face
unfathomable.)
Malarkey! No real university professor is that dumb!
he is, if he teaches evolution as a fact...
You don't even know what evolution is Mr Creationist. You're certainly
not qualified to say whether it's fact or not!
## Lepus tute es; et pulpamentum quaeris!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 12:23:28 PM |
|
|
John Ings wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 14:33:38 -0800, wrote:
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)
No real professor would.
would do what.. smile?
Shake his head.
Maybe roll his eyes.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 05:47:54 PM |
|
|
John Ings wrote:
But we have observed the evolution of one species to another.
Many times.
really.. so is a pitbull a species? how did it evolved?
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
08 Feb 2005 11:48:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
John Ings wrote:
But we have observed the evolution of one species to another.
Many times.
really.. so is a pitbull a species? how did it evolved?
a pit bull is caenis familiaris. there is a large species of such four
footed carnivorous fur bearing creatures. the pit bull of one of
so are collies and german shepards and golden retreivers. and for the
record humans developed the pit bull using human methods.
some creationist statements are so stupid. they dont ever look
anything up. There are popular and scientific books available about dogs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
09 Feb 2005 09:20:27 PM |
|
|
and for the record humans developed the pit bull using human methods.
so it is not an evolved species.. it just a combination of two dogs,
and then someone gave it a scientific name..
so what is the scientifiv for the human Mulato? homo equus burchellii?
.
|
|
|
| User: "eBataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
09 Feb 2005 09:37:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
and for the record humans developed the pit bull using human methods.
so it is not an evolved species..
Yes it is. It has changed genetically from its forebearers. It has evolved.
it just a combination of two dogs,
and then someone gave it a scientific name..
so what is the scientifiv for the human Mulato? homo equus burchellii?
Look in a mirror for your answer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 06:27:53 PM |
|
|
On 5 Feb 2005 15:47:54 -0800, wrote:
But we have observed the evolution of one species to another.
Many times.
really.. so is a pitbull a species? how did it evolved?
From wolves, as have all domestic dogs.
## Are you thinking, or just rearranging your prejudices?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
