| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2004 09:08:58 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: the inverted eye |
--0-1976693019-1088690938=:46755
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
not even human designers behave in this fashion. it
like asking Mitubishi to coem up with a car with six
tires, because Ford has 4, so it can be easy to
differentiate one Automaker from the other.
Tin: Designers don't make objects that fit into objective nested
hierarchies.
Of course not, this would make the designer use evolution as a tool.
It is not.
Good designers don't put things in backwards like the
eye, or make homocidal maniacs like male lions.
Why? because you say so? the human eye works, does it not?
a designer would design something that works.
As for the Lions, you are the first person I've encountered, that
has ascribe
a moral issue with an another creature.
Sure YOUR all
powerful designer could be different. But you all powerful designer
could do or be anything, making it a scientifically worthless idea.
why?
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
di you ever heard of the Manpanzee project?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--0-1976693019-1088690938=:46755
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>>> not even human designers behave in this fashion. it<BR>>> like asking Mitubishi to coem up with a car with six<BR>>> tires, because Ford has 4, so it can be easy to<BR>>> differentiate one Automaker from the other.<BR>>><BR>><BR>>Tin: Designers don't make objects that fit into objective nested<BR>>hierarchies.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course not, this would make the designer use evolution as a tool.<BR>It is not.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>Good designers don't put things in backwards like the<BR>>eye, or make homocidal maniacs like male lions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why? because you say so? the human eye works, does it not?<BR>a designer would design something that works.</DIV>
<DIV>As for the Lions, you are the first person I've encountered, that<BR>has ascribe<BR>a moral issue with an another creature.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>Sure YOUR all<BR>>powerful designer could be different. But you all powerful designer<BR>>could do or be anything, making it a scientifically worthless idea.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>why?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it<BR>>doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To<BR>>the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't<BR>>testable it isn't science.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.<BR>di you ever heard of the Manpanzee project?</DIV><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/100/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html">New and Improved Yahoo! Mail</a> - 100MB free storage!
--0-1976693019-1088690938=:46755--
.
|
|
| User: "3-4-5" |
|
| Title: Re: the inverted eye & Trolls like Jabriol |
01 Jul 2004 01:00:43 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" a known racist and soulless reprobate
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20040701140858.49634.qmail@web10803.mail.yahoo.com...
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
di you ever heard of the Manpanzee project?
====================================
Jabberhole has been on this SAME manpanzee subject for years. As a
Jehovah's Witness he isn't allowed to believe in evolution and must cling
hopelessly to the creation myth. If you think you can reason with a
fanatic you're wasting your time. He uses this same tired old
manpanzee/evolution/creation argument as it's the only way he can get
attention and replies to his posts.
--
Wanda in Watchtowerland...
The WTS treat the sheep like mushrooms...
keep them in the dark and feed them
bullsh!t..... (Cedit to Dizz)
===================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
10 Jul 2004 11:00:35 PM |
|
|
1. A car is organic (molecular structure based in carbon).
True or false?
2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?
3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure. True/false?
4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?
5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?
6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the
desert leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we
are in trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?
7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life
turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that
each different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to
its kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came
into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it
was or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx
had pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features
and therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, is pretty much what a
transitional giraffe could have looked like.
True or false?
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over
60 million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents
one "kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?
15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?
16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?
19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?
20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in
these news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal
holes in the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence
from others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?
23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?
24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a ***** they are.
True or false?
The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.
25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%
Please *support* your answer with at least one competent and
intelligent reference that does not refer to a non-existent article in
_New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation, and is not merely a
headline from an article that has nothing otherwise to do with the
topic.
There will be more questions added to this growing list when a
reasonable amount of time passes and you predictably fail to address
them in the original threads.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 09:18:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
--0-1976693019-1088690938=:46755
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
It is a theory of our origins based on the evidence. The evidence is
there for all to see. And the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual
selection and genetic drift can be tested and so can the frequency of
mutations.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 01:51:47 PM |
|
|
(William) wrote in message news:<40e41c0a.1046148@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
--0-1976693019-1088690938=:46755
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
It is a theory of our origins based on the evidence. The evidence is
there for all to see.
And for all to come to their own conclusions, depending on reviewing
the evidence, what group the evidence is an advocate for, and who is
to benefit on from the interpretation of the evidence.
remember OJ simpson trial case. Guilty in one case, not guilty in
another.
same evidence.
And the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual
selection and genetic drift can be tested and so can the frequency of
mutations.
William
so, lets enhance evolution and bring about a new species. Let call it
Homo Sexual. oh wait we got one of those..
ok let bring out the manpanzee.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 06:51:31 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2004 11:51:47 -0700, wrote:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote
It is a theory of our origins based on the evidence. The evidence is
there for all to see.
And for all to come to their own conclusions, depending on reviewing
the evidence, what group the evidence is an advocate for, and who is
to benefit on from the interpretation of the evidence.
The theory of evolution has acceptance right across all the scientific
disciplines.
remember OJ simpson trial case. Guilty in one case, not guilty in
another. same evidence.
The jury disregarded the scientific evidence. A good example of the
dangers of letting subjective beliefs override the scientific process.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 05:10:49 AM |
|
|
(William) wrote in message news:<40e4a22e.4811965@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>...
On 1 Jul 2004 11:51:47 -0700, wrote:
(William) wrote
It is a theory of our origins based on the evidence. The evidence is
there for all to see.
And for all to come to their own conclusions, depending on reviewing
the evidence, what group the evidence is an advocate for, and who is
to benefit on from the interpretation of the evidence.
The theory of evolution has acceptance right across all the scientific
disciplines.
acceptence yes. Concrete fact no. And no all scientist agree. Those
who does not agree are forced out the mainstream elite club, who has a
trademark on evolution.
remember OJ simpson trial case. Guilty in one case, not guilty in
another. same evidence.
The jury disregarded the scientific evidence. A good example of the
dangers of letting subjective beliefs override the scientific process.
William
Are you sure. Almost one thousands American service men and women,
have lost thier lives based on evidence, that there was WMD in Iraq.
The evidence was at the time, a well known fact based on very procse
investigation. or so we were told. And you know the rest... There is
no WND in Iraq. But there is Oil.
Cocnclusion based on evidence is based, on who is looking at it.
the same goes for any science theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 07:49:37 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, wrote in
<e4bcbc36.0407020210.57e5cf44@posting.google.com>:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote in message news:<40e4a22e.4811965@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>...
On 1 Jul 2004 11:51:47 -0700, wrote:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote
It is a theory of our origins based on the evidence. The evidence is
there for all to see.
And for all to come to their own conclusions, depending on reviewing
the evidence, what group the evidence is an advocate for, and who is
to benefit on from the interpretation of the evidence.
The theory of evolution has acceptance right across all the scientific
disciplines.
acceptence yes. Concrete fact no. And no all scientist agree. Those
who does not agree are forced out the mainstream elite club, who has a
trademark on evolution.
remember OJ simpson trial case. Guilty in one case, not guilty in
another. same evidence.
The jury disregarded the scientific evidence. A good example of the
dangers of letting subjective beliefs override the scientific process.
William
Are you sure. Almost one thousands American service men and women,
have lost thier lives based on evidence, that there was WMD in Iraq.
Of course, as we know, there was no evidence and the Administration lied
to us.
The evidence was at the time, a well known fact based on very procse
investigation. or so we were told. And you know the rest... There is
no WND in Iraq. But there is Oil.
Yes.
Cocnclusion based on evidence is based, on who is looking at it.
the same goes for any science theory.
Not always.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 09:09:20 AM |
|
|
On 2 Jul 2004 03:10:49 -0700, wrote:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote
wrote:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote
It is a theory of our origins based on the evidence. The evidence is
there for all to see.
And for all to come to their own conclusions, depending on reviewing
the evidence, what group the evidence is an advocate for, and who is
to benefit on from the interpretation of the evidence.
The theory of evolution has acceptance right across all the scientific
disciplines.
acceptence yes. Concrete fact no. And no all scientist agree. Those
who does not agree are forced out the mainstream elite club, who has a
trademark on evolution.
There is no club. No theory is sacred. Any scientist is free to
present a scientific case to show that the theory of evolution is
false. If successful they would get a Nobel Prize. None has come near.
remember OJ simpson trial case. Guilty in one case, not guilty in
another. same evidence.
The jury disregarded the scientific evidence. A good example of the
dangers of letting subjective beliefs override the scientific process.
Are you sure. Almost one thousands American service men and women,
have lost thier lives based on evidence, that there was WMD in Iraq.
What's that got to do with the theory of evolution?
The evidence was at the time, a well known fact based on very procse
investigation.
It was nowhere near the sort of evidence that would be required for a
scientific theory like the theory of evolution. There is overwhelming
evidence right across the scientific disciplines and spanning over 100
years.
or so we were told. And you know the rest... There is no WND in Iraq.
But there is Oil. Cocnclusion based on evidence is based, on who
is looking at it. the same goes for any science theory.
A scientific theory is an explanation of what is observed in the
natural (objective) world. The best theory is the one that explains
the most observed facts and can be tested and can make predictions.
The theory of evolution does all that. No other theory comes near.
William
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 09:41:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0000 in episode
<40e41c0a.1046148@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk> we saw our hero
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William):
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
--0-1976693019-1088690938=:46755
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it doesn't
fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To the extend
it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't testable it
isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
It is a theory of our origins based on the evidence. The evidence is there
for all to see. And the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection
and genetic drift can be tested and so can the frequency of mutations.
And being a theory built on evidence, it is indeed "testable" contra the
lies of creationists...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 10:10:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 09:41:33 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <inv@lid_email.no>
wrote:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William):
jabriol<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
--0-1976693019-1088690938=:46755
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID
because it doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it
isn't testable. To the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the
extent that it isn't testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
It is a theory of our origins based on the evidence. The evidence
is there for all to see. And the mechanisms of natural selection,
sexual selection and genetic drift can be tested and so can the
frequency of mutations.
And being a theory built on evidence, it is indeed "testable" contra the
lies of creationists...
The main problem arises when they try to make out that creationism is
scientific. That's when all the lies start. If they just let it remain
a religious belief they can get away with almost anything. There is
nothing to stop a 'flat earth' religious doctrine being propogated as
long as no-one tries to pretend it is scientific.
William
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 10:35:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Good designers don't put things in backwards like the
eye, or make homocidal maniacs like male lions.
Why? because you say so?
The nipples on a man's chest are good design?
Our inability to manufacture vitamin C when most other mammals can is
good design? Because you say so?
a designer would design something that works.
Like your nipples? Or your appendix?
As for the Lions, you are the first person I've encountered, that
has ascribe a moral issue with an another creature.
An instict for killing the young of your own kind is good design?
Sure YOUR all
powerful designer could be different. But you all powerful designer
could do or be anything, making it a scientifically worthless idea.
why?
Omnipotence does not need to be scientific.
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
Of course it is nitwit! Your chromosome patterns match that of a
chimpanzee to 98%. Men and apes share far too many characteristics for
it to be mere shared design. Unless you want to argue that God screwed
up the same way with multiple seperate creations.
## "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
## as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-- Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 05:23:18 AM |
|
|
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message news:<t7b8e0p066tnev4qk6mbo5ss5i79a5en06@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Good designers don't put things in backwards like the
eye, or make homocidal maniacs like male lions.
Why? because you say so?
The nipples on a man's chest are good design?
Our inability to manufacture vitamin C when most other mammals can is
good design? Because you say so?
Is bad design? can you function if you eat a few oranges.
and what is wrong with male nipples?
a designer would design something that works.
Like your nipples? Or your appendix?
You know you may have paoint. Ley me ask you this. How does Stop-Leak
seal the radiator of a car.
As for the Lions, you are the first person I've encountered, that
has ascribe a moral issue with an another creature.
An instict for killing the young of your own kind is good design?
of course. ever heard of capital punishment?
Sure YOUR all
powerful designer could be different. But you all powerful designer
could do or be anything, making it a scientifically worthless idea.
why?
Omnipotence does not need to be scientific.
so says a creationist. I am not a creationist, I don't belive in hocus
pocus magic.
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
Of course it is nitwit! Your chromosome patterns match that of a
chimpanzee to 98%.
ok then there should be no problem in producing a human chimp hybrid
known as the manpanzee.
oh and by the way, Human has a 50% chromosme match with a banana, I
guess that makes you the decendant of a fruit.
Men and apes share far too many characteristics for
it to be mere shared design. Unless you want to argue that God screwed
up the same way with multiple seperate creations.
why would it be a screw up? Boeing make Airplane, so does WhipAire who
manufacture cessna airplane. Do you their engineers screww up because
one can fly a bit faster than another?
## "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
## as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-- Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "deowll" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 01:29:13 PM |
|
|
<jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4bcbc36.0407020223.14a42b67@posting.google.com...
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:<t7b8e0p066tnev4qk6mbo5ss5i79a5en06@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Good designers don't put things in backwards like the
eye, or make homocidal maniacs like male lions.
Why? because you say so?
The nipples on a man's chest are good design?
Our inability to manufacture vitamin C when most other mammals can is
good design? Because you say so?
Is bad design? can you function if you eat a few oranges.
and what is wrong with male nipples?
a designer would design something that works.
Like your nipples? Or your appendix?
You know you may have paoint. Ley me ask you this. How does Stop-Leak
seal the radiator of a car.
As for the Lions, you are the first person I've encountered, that
has ascribe a moral issue with an another creature.
An instict for killing the young of your own kind is good design?
of course. ever heard of capital punishment?
Sure YOUR all
powerful designer could be different. But you all powerful designer
could do or be anything, making it a scientifically worthless idea.
why?
Omnipotence does not need to be scientific.
so says a creationist. I am not a creationist, I don't belive in hocus
pocus magic.
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
Of course it is nitwit! Your chromosome patterns match that of a
chimpanzee to 98%.
ok then there should be no problem in producing a human chimp hybrid
known as the manpanzee.
I wish you guys would stop suggesting that. If you have even three brain
cells working you know some clown somewhere is going to do it.
oh and by the way, Human has a 50% chromosme match with a banana, I
guess that makes you the decendant of a fruit.
Men and apes share far too many characteristics for
it to be mere shared design. Unless you want to argue that God screwed
up the same way with multiple seperate creations.
why would it be a screw up? Boeing make Airplane, so does WhipAire who
manufacture cessna airplane. Do you their engineers screww up because
one can fly a bit faster than another?
## "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
## as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-- Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 06:03:08 PM |
|
|
"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<WKhFc.2638$vk5.1693@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
Is bad design? can you function if you eat a few oranges.
and what is wrong with male nipples?
a designer would design something that works.
Like your nipples? Or your appendix?
nipples are sweat organs.
the appendix is Rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells.
note the following from a none creationist site.
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7
seems to me that the appendicx and male nipples works just fine.
You know you may have point. Ley me ask you this. How does Stop-Leak
seal the radiator of a car.
As for the Lions, you are the first person I've encountered, that
has ascribe a moral issue with an another creature.
An instict for killing the young of your own kind is good design?
of course. ever heard of capital punishment?
Sure YOUR all
powerful designer could be different. But you all powerful designer
could do or be anything, making it a scientifically worthless idea.
why?
Omnipotence does not need to be scientific.
so says a creationist. I am not a creationist, I don't belive in hocus
pocus magic.
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
Of course it is nitwit! Your chromosome patterns match that of a
chimpanzee to 98%.
ok then there should be no problem in producing a human chimp hybrid
known as the manpanzee.
I wish you guys would stop suggesting that. If you have even three brain
cells working you know some clown somewhere is going to do it.
then he will be famous, and the Bible will be dumped in every
trashcan in the world eh?
oh and by the way, Human has a 50% chromosme match with a banana, I
guess that makes you the decendant of a fruit.
Men and apes share far too many characteristics for
it to be mere shared design. Unless you want to argue that God screwed
up the same way with multiple seperate creations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 04:36:20 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jul 2004 03:23:18 -0700, wrote:
The nipples on a man's chest are good design?
Our inability to manufacture vitamin C when most other mammals can is
good design? Because you say so?
Is bad design? can you function if you eat a few oranges.
Can you always find the oranges?
and what is wrong with male nipples?
a (good) designer would design something that works.
a designer would design something that works.
Like your nipples? Or your appendix?
You know you may have paoint. Ley me ask you this.
How does Stop-Leak seal the radiator of a car.
Adequately if the hole isn't too large.
As for the Lions, you are the first person I've encountered, that
has ascribe a moral issue with an another creature.
An instict for killing the young of your own kind is good design?
of course. ever heard of capital punishment?
The lion isn't punishing the cubs he kills. Nor does he eat them.
Omnipotence does not need to be scientific.
so says a creationist. I am not a creationist,
Oh yes you are Jabby!
I don't belive in hocus pocus magic.
You believe in Jehova don't you?
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at all.
Of course it is nitwit! Your chromosome patterns match that of a
chimpanzee to 98%.
ok then there should be no problem in producing a human chimp hybrid
known as the manpanzee.
Of course there is! As you would know if you had a clue about
genetics. The broken 2nd chromosome prevents interfertility.
oh and by the way, Human has a 50% chromosme match with a banana,
*****!
Men and apes share far too many characteristics for
it to be mere shared design. Unless you want to argue that God screwed
up the same way with multiple seperate creations.
why would it be a screw up?
Bad design. Like the way your guts are hung from your spine for
instance.
Boeing make Airplane, so does WhipAire who
manufacture cessna airplane. Do you their engineers screww up because
one can fly a bit faster than another?
But Boeing did screw up making a latch mechanism for their 747cargo
bay doors that didn't stay closed in flight reliablty. And so did
Douglas with the DC10. But neither of them carried the same bad
design over into their next model. Your intelligent designer
apparently isn't that smart.
## "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
## as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-- Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Holden" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 12:11:40 PM |
|
|
John Ings wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Good designers don't put things in backwards like the
eye, or make homocidal maniacs like male lions.
Why? because you say so?
The nipples on a man's chest are good design?
Our inability to manufacture vitamin C when most other mammals can is
good design? Because you say so?
a designer would design something that works.
Like your nipples? Or your appendix?
As for the Lions, you are the first person I've encountered, that
has ascribe a moral issue with an another creature.
An instict for killing the young of your own kind is good design?
Sure YOUR all
powerful designer could be different. But you all powerful designer
could do or be anything, making it a scientifically worthless idea.
why?
Omnipotence does not need to be scientific.
So really it seems you have two choices. Reject ID because it
doesn't fit the evidence or reject ID because it isn't testable. To
the extend it's testable it doesn't fit, to the extent that it isn't
testable it isn't science.
but ...but .... evolution as the origin of man is not testable at
all.
Of course it is nitwit! Your chromosome patterns match that of a
chimpanzee to 98%. Men and apes share far too many characteristics for
it to be mere shared design. Unless you want to argue that God screwed
up the same way with multiple seperate creations.
Not to mention that evolution in animals is directly observable. Darwin
*saw* evolution occuring in the Galapagos, and anyone on this planet can go
there and see exactly what he saw. Scientists still observe the bird
populations that were among those that led to his theories, and you can
watch those populations evolve in perfect harmony with said theories. It
observable and testable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 05:26:23 AM |
|
|
"Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in message news:<2kiuueF2rtiiU1@uni-berlin.de>...
John Ings wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Not to mention that evolution in animals is directly observable. Darwin
*saw* evolution occuring in the Galapagos, and anyone on this planet can go
there and see exactly what he saw. Scientists still observe the bird
populations that were among those that led to his theories, and you can
watch those populations evolve in perfect harmony with said theories. It
observable and testable.
Yes I can ever forget How darwin saw an iguana evolved over time int a
finch.
the problem is with your comment Birds remain birds.
Humand much more better at adapting to their enviroment. Bus as for
evolution as the origin of man, this can even be proven with the
scientific method.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 07:37:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
Not to mention that evolution in animals is directly observable.
Microevolution is.
Darwin *saw* evolution occuring in the Galapagos,
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
Don't forget, Judas also left early.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "deowll" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
01 Jul 2004 08:09:47 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oib9e0tqs3ophddlksm93vhrmf596l9a2e@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
Not to mention that evolution in animals is directly observable.
Microevolution is.
Darwin *saw* evolution occuring in the Galapagos,
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
One wet drought cycle seems to be enough to push one bird population from
having mostly birds with larg beaks to mostly birds with small beaks and
back again in a few years time.
To be honest men act like apes, they smell like apes, they eat the same
things apes eat given the option, and they die like apes. When did they stop
being apes?
We got a bigger brain and we run around on our hind legs. Big deal. When it
comes to vice and virtue we don't seem to have made that much progess.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
Don't forget, Judas also left early.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 05:33:33 AM |
|
|
"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<Xy2Fc.1040
To be honest men act like apes, they smell like apes, they eat the
same
things apes eat given the option, and they die like apes. When did they stop
being apes?
Per science men are still clasified as apes. You give a classic
example of "we are apes no longer because of our brains" syndrome.
this not correct.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 10:00:37 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:09:47 -0500, "deowll"
<deowll@bellsouth.net> posted thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oib9e0tqs3ophddlksm93vhrmf596l9a2e@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
Not to mention that evolution in animals is directly observable.
Microevolution is.
Darwin *saw* evolution occuring in the Galapagos,
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
One wet drought cycle seems to be enough to push one bird population from
having mostly birds with larg beaks to mostly birds with small beaks and
back again in a few years time.
Microevolution, as I said.
To be honest men act like apes, they smell like apes, they eat the same
things apes eat given the option, and they die like apes. When did they stop
being apes?
We got a bigger brain and we run around on our hind legs. Big deal. When it
comes to vice and virtue we don't seem to have made that much progess.
Now you have assumed that we are apes. Yet you still
have not demonstrated that.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
02 Jul 2004 10:24:33 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:09:47 -0500, "deowll"
<deowll@bellsouth.net> posted thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oib9e0tqs3ophddlksm93vhrmf596l9a2e@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
Not to mention that evolution in animals is directly observable.
Microevolution is.
Darwin *saw* evolution occuring in the Galapagos,
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
One wet drought cycle seems to be enough to push one bird population from
having mostly birds with larg beaks to mostly birds with small beaks and
back again in a few years time.
Microevolution, as I said.
Which is, of course, evolution. All evolution is an accumulation of one on
more "microevolutionary" steps.
To be honest men act like apes, they smell like apes, they eat the same
things apes eat given the option, and they die like apes. When did they stop
being apes?
We got a bigger brain and we run around on our hind legs. Big deal. When it
comes to vice and virtue we don't seem to have made that much progess.
Now you have assumed that we are apes. Yet you still
have not demonstrated that.
What could be more demonstrative than the fact that we fit the definition
of an ape?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Holden" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
08 Jul 2004 03:14:51 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
Not to mention that evolution in animals is directly observable.
Microevolution is.
Darwin *saw* evolution occuring in the Galapagos,
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
lol, if you honestly want me to explain to you the application of science
then I'm afraid I'll need a significant downpayment and you'll be forced to
buy a few elemntary level textbooks to start. There simply isn't enough time
in the day to educate every believer myself in basic fundamentals that you
should already know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
09 Jul 2004 08:28:22 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
It's called argument by analogy. "Since we see xyz in these species, and
since we see that same effect in all other species, then it is reasonable to
assume xyz also in humans." It's rather an obvious inference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
10 Jul 2004 10:11:55 AM |
|
|
"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" <someone@micrsfot.com> wrote in message
news:W3xHc.56143$XM6.46203@attbi_s53...
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
It's called argument by analogy. "Since we see xyz in these species, and
since we see that same effect in all other species, then it is reasonable
to
assume xyz also in humans." It's rather an obvious inference.
As an evolutionary biologist and a teacher, I have to allow that if all we
had was Darwin's Finches, an argument by analogy infering an evolutionary
relationship between man and ape would not be a very scientific inference,
but I think Dave knows that, which is why he tried to pretend that it *is*
all we have. Of course, there's much more to it than that, and Dave knows
it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
16 Jul 2004 02:02:25 PM |
|
|
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:28:22 GMT, "Aardvark J.
Bandersnatch, MP" <someone@micrsfot.com> screamed out:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
It's called argument by analogy.
It's called a fairy tale like the Bible.
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither
have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips
was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
14 Jul 2004 06:24:06 PM |
|
|
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:28:22 GMT, "Aardvark J.
Bandersnatch, MP" <someone@micrsfot.com> screamed out:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
It's called argument by analogy.
It's called a fairy tale.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"If then, these teachings [of a false prophet]
contradict the chief doctrine and article of Christ,
we should accord them neither with attention nor
acceptance though it were to snow miracles daily."
- Martin Luther
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Holden" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
15 Jul 2004 12:13:52 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:28:22 GMT, "Aardvark J.
Bandersnatch, MP" <someone@micrsfot.com> screamed out:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
It's called argument by analogy.
It's called a fairy tale.
roflmao!!!! this from a guy who claims that the earth was really created by
an invisible sky-fairy!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
15 Jul 2004 09:32:18 PM |
|
|
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:13:52 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> screamed out:
Pastor Dave wrote:
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:28:22 GMT, "Aardvark J.
Bandersnatch, MP" <someone@micrsfot.com> screamed out:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
It's called argument by analogy.
It's called a fairy tale.
roflmao!!!! this from a guy who claims that the earth was really created by
an invisible sky-fairy!
And this insult from a guy who claims that nothing
created the universe from nothingness.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD. - Joshua 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: the inverted eye |
15 Jul 2004 09:37:15 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mgfef0l013eoh44c7jnj360gjssva2ucb0@4ax.com...
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:13:52 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> screamed out:
Pastor Dave wrote:
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:28:22 GMT, "Aardvark J.
Bandersnatch, MP" <someone@micrsfot.com> screamed out:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:11:40 -0500, "Holden"
<nothx@ihatespam.com> posted thusly:
He saw different finches. Since when does that equal
man from ape?
It's called argument by analogy.
It's called a fairy tale.
roflmao!!!! this from a guy who claims that the earth was really created
by
an invisible sky-fairy!
And this insult from a guy who claims that nothing
created the universe from nothingness.
What about the guy who claims to hold a pastorate but won't tell us how he
got it?
Dave, theories about the creation of the Universe do not say that "nothing
created the universe from nothingness." Is your ignorance of these things
as profound as your ignorance of biology?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
