| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Robert Clark" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2004 12:08:28 PM |
| Object: |
Truth or Fallacy? |
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 12:51:11 PM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> said:
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guardian Pegasus" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 01:39:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus... largely
believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clockmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 06:52:11 PM |
|
|
"Guardian Pegasus" <pope@holysee.va> wrote in message
news:8gh6k09pupakfn5qjubb6plcb84klk4uq7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus... largely
believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
They believe the ***** their government spouts as well... makes you
wonder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 09:03:32 PM |
|
|
"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in news:41438d62$1
@duster.adelaide.on.net:
"Guardian Pegasus" <pope@holysee.va> wrote in message
news:8gh6k09pupakfn5qjubb6plcb84klk4uq7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus... largely
believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
They believe the ***** their government spouts as well... makes you
wonder.
Not all of us!
--
Enkidu aa 2165
Now playing: Alpinestars - Hotel Parallel
That wall, embodied in the First Amendment, is perhaps
America's most important contribution to political progress
on this planet.
Lowell Weicker
Republican Senator 1971-1989
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney stoney@ the.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 10:14:11 AM |
|
|
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus... largely
believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
And the cretinists have their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clockmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 10:38:23 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
news:10k8pu35b47p2c4@corp.supernews.com...
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus... largely
believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
And the cretinists have their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
Ironic really...
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney stoney@ the.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
13 Sep 2004 10:43:30 PM |
|
|
Clockmeister wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
news:10k8pu35b47p2c4@corp.supernews.com...
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net>
wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus...
largely believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
And the cretinists have their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
Ironic really...
That too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
14 Sep 2004 07:01:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:43:30 -0700, stoney <stoney@ the.net> wrote:
Clockmeister wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
news:10k8pu35b47p2c4@corp.supernews.com...
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net>
wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus...
largely believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
And the cretinists have their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
Ironic really...
That too.
How widely published in the US, was President Reagan's speech that he
believed the final battle, Armageddon, would be in his lifetime? That
put the wind up Europeans. It confirmed what a loonie he was, and he
was the person who could make it happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clockmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
14 Sep 2004 11:40:48 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:h8ndk050qhhotkp6qf6aki6c99qkss9bch@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:43:30 -0700, stoney <stoney@ the.net> wrote:
Clockmeister wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
news:10k8pu35b47p2c4@corp.supernews.com...
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net>
wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus...
largely believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
And the cretinists have their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
Ironic really...
That too.
How widely published in the US, was President Reagan's speech that he
believed the final battle, Armageddon, would be in his lifetime? That
put the wind up Europeans. It confirmed what a loonie he was, and he
was the person who could make it happen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conrad Geller" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
14 Sep 2004 11:37:11 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
How widely published in the US, was President Reagan's speech that he
believed the final battle, Armageddon, would be in his lifetime? That
put the wind up Europeans. It confirmed what a loonie he was, and he
was the person who could make it happen.
Not at all, not even in the extraordinary week of reminiscences that
preceded his funeral. Someone has made a genial, avuncular figure of
Reagan, disregarding his apocalyptic vision, his reliance on astrology
for many of his major decisions, and his single-handedly destroying the
power of American unions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
14 Sep 2004 11:40:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:37:11 GMT, Conrad Geller
<cgeller@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
How widely published in the US, was President Reagan's speech that he
believed the final battle, Armageddon, would be in his lifetime? That
put the wind up Europeans. It confirmed what a loonie he was, and he
was the person who could make it happen.
Not at all, not even in the extraordinary week of reminiscences that
preceded his funeral. Someone has made a genial, avuncular figure of
Reagan, disregarding his apocalyptic vision, his reliance on astrology
for many of his major decisions, and his single-handedly destroying the
power of American unions.
He made a lot of silly remarks like that. It's one of the reasons the
Europeans saw him as a idiot, and couldn't understand why an
electorate would vote a loony like that, in.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney stoney@ the.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
14 Sep 2004 03:30:45 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:43:30 -0700, stoney <stoney@ the.net> wrote:
Clockmeister wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@ the.net> wrote in message
news:10k8pu35b47p2c4@corp.supernews.com...
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net>
wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in
God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus...
largely believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
And the cretinists have their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
Ironic really...
That too.
How widely published in the US, was President Reagan's speech that he
believed the final battle, Armageddon, would be in his lifetime? That
put the wind up Europeans. It confirmed what a loonie he was, and he
was the person who could make it happen.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/ronald-reagan/
http://www.americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumber=39
Public Service:
* Dates of Presidency: 1/20/1981 - 1/20/1989
I don't know when that speech was made. It's possible I heard it or
read about it soon after it happened, but those memory tracks were
destroyed. A few weeks ago I got a hefty shock on just how much more
of my memory tracks were destroyed than I thought.
I can't answer your question, Chris. I don't remember. :\
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 02:57:22 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:39:09 +0200, Guardian Pegasus wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:51:11 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
There are also people who believe in evolution and believe in God.
In fact, the wide majority of religious people, including
fundamentalist muslims, roman catholics and militant hindus... largely
believe in evolution.
That creationism has it's largest base in the US is simply
frightening.
Maybe there really _is_ some sort of "cosmic justice" going on - maybe the
U.S. is the punishment the rest of the world has to suffer for foisting so
many of their religious loons upon Native Americans... EEEK!!! :-#
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guardian Pegasus" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 08:50:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:57:22 -0700, Uncle Dollar Bill
<UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
Maybe there really _is_ some sort of "cosmic justice" going on - maybe the
U.S. is the punishment the rest of the world has to suffer for foisting so
many of their religious loons upon Native Americans... EEEK!!! :-#
lol... personally, I'm beginning to think it really *is* genetic.
There's ample evidence that religion is an evolutionary function, and
strongly rooted in the brain of most people. Atheism may simply be the
next evolution... however, all of europe's most heavily religious
people went to "the promise land"... might explain why the US is so
religious, and northern europe isn't. Then again, it might also simply
be cultural. I'd sure like to see a comparison scan between a million
american brains and a million northern european brains.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney stoney@ the.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 10:18:37 AM |
|
|
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:57:22 -0700, Uncle Dollar Bill
<UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
Maybe there really _is_ some sort of "cosmic justice" going on - maybe
the U.S. is the punishment the rest of the world has to suffer for
foisting so
many of their religious loons upon Native Americans... EEEK!!! :-#
lol... personally, I'm beginning to think it really *is* genetic.
There's ample evidence that religion is an evolutionary function, and
strongly rooted in the brain of most people. Atheism may simply be the
next evolution... however, all of europe's most heavily religious
people went to "the promise land"... might explain why the US is so
religious, and northern europe isn't. Then again, it might also simply
be cultural. I'd sure like to see a comparison scan between a million
american brains and a million northern european brains.
American brain (in the main) generates little neuron activity.
European brain (in the main) generates much neuron activity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 10:11:05 PM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
What about those who directly observe it happening?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney stoney@ the.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 10:09:34 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a
higher power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever
going to be persuasive.
What about those who directly observe it happening?
Which includes Robert Clark....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 04:30:59 PM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
Somewhat amusingly those people you criticise would say the same about
creationists.
Changing steadfastly opposed to steadfastly believe of course.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clockmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 06:57:49 PM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
Creationism is science for the terminally stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney stoney@ the.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 10:11:37 AM |
|
|
Clockmeister wrote:
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
Creationism is science for the terminally stupid.
Creationism isn't science. Creationism is 'outhouse dip.'
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 07:12:33 PM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
There are only two kinds of creationists. The kind who lie their asses off
about evolution and the theories explaining it, and the kind who are stupid
enough to believe the lies. Which are you, Robert?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney stoney@ the.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 10:10:46 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a
higher power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever
going to be persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations
for you to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
There are only two kinds of creationists. The kind who lie their asses
off about evolution and the theories explaining it, and the kind who
are stupid enough to believe the lies. Which are you, Robert?
Three. You forgot those who are terminally uneducated and haven't the
slightest clue about the subject. Clark qualifies for all three.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
11 Sep 2004 09:05:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:12:33 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
There are only two kinds of creationists. The kind who lie their asses off
about evolution and the theories explaining it, and the kind who are stupid
enough to believe the lies. Which are you, Robert?
You left out the third kind - those who are stupid enough to imagine
that anybody with an education, or with a knowledge of the real world,
won't see through their lies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
13 Sep 2004 04:01:12 PM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com>...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
Congratulations. You have set a new record, it took less than two sentences to
convince me that the site is not worth reading. "All other planets in our
observed solar system is composed of barren rock ...".
Yech!
Rereading the half sentence, how many problems are there in it?
Lisbeth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
13 Sep 2004 04:36:07 PM |
|
|
On 13 Sep 2004 14:01:12 -0700, (Lisbeth Andersson)
wrote:
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com>...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
Congratulations. You have set a new record, it took less than two sentences to
convince me that the site is not worth reading. "All other planets in our
observed solar system is composed of barren rock ...".
Yech!
Rereading the half sentence, how many problems are there in it?
Hmm, let's see. Even after correcting the two grammatical errors so
that it reads "all the other planets in our observed solar system are
composed of barren rock", it's still factually incorrect, unless
somehow the "gas giants" from Jupiter through Neptune were recently
petrified.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
13 Sep 2004 05:07:33 PM |
|
|
On 13 Sep 2004 14:01:12 -0700, (Lisbeth Andersson) wrote:
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com>...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
Congratulations. You have set a new record, it took less than two sentences to
convince me that the site is not worth reading. "All other planets in our
observed solar system is composed of barren rock ...".
Yech!
Rereading the half sentence, how many problems are there in it?
Do you want to count just the factual ones? Like that most of the planets out beyond
Mars are big balls of gas, wannabe suns that weren't big enough, with no known rocky
content? We should pay a *lot* of attention to this source of wisdom. </thermonuclear
sarcasm>
Lisbeth.
I hope you washed your hands, after fingering that crap.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
12 Sep 2004 02:24:13 AM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com>...
There are only two kinds of Evolutionists:
1) There are those who have never seriously examined the reasons why
evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
2) There are those who are stedfastly opposed to believing in a higher
power, and hense no amount of evidence for creationism is ever going to be
persuasive.
For any who might fall into catagory 1); some helpful observations for you
to ponder can be found at http://www.truthorfallacy.com
Then of course there's the third group (that people of your ilk are
too blind to see), but which covers the majority of intelligent
people:
3) Those who've examined the evidence, understood it, and been smart
enough to grasp that it demonstrates overwhelmingly that whether or
not any god was involved at the very beginning, evolution is a *fact*
that is seen in the lab:
Changing one gene launches new fly species:
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uocm-cog120403.php
and in the wild:
Mosquitoes evolve in London Underground
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/158522.stm
and that is exhibited strongly in diverse sciences such as
paleontology:
Dinosaur-bird links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/189098.stm
in geology, genetics, biochemistry, agriculture, medicine, anatomy,
and physiology.
Let me take a few minutes to demonstrate that the truth is that your
entire web site reference is a fallacy. Your clueless attack reveals
your weaknesses:
1. Evolution is not impossible, but has occurred and continues to do
so. Here are 29+ evidences for it - scientific evidences, not
childish questions like your website "reference" asks:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I'll be delighted to debate this with you in this news group or on the
web site or news group of your choice, if you feel you can make a
case. Simply post your opening statement making your best supported
argument for creation, email same to me, telling me where your
argument is posted and I'll be happy refute it promptly.
But please note, the sciences are not conducted on web sites or in
debates, but in scientific fora, in the field, in laboratories, and
are reported in standard, peer-reviewed science journals. If the
creationists have a solid case, why aren't they making their case
where *real scientists* make their case?
2. You claim that "no amount of evidence for creationism" will be
persuasive. Are you talking about the droughts that occurred (by
creationist philosophy) in the middle of the global flood? Here's an
article on them by a creationist who was forced to change his tune
after a hard look at the facts - and he did it without giving up God:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/droughts.htm
But even the most diehard atheist believes there is creationism.
Where the evidence is tragically lacking is not for creationism, but
for *creation*. In the 140+ years since Darwin published "On the
Origin...", the creationist camp has consistently and comprehensively
failed to offer a scientific case for any of their claims.
Are scientists atheists?
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1997/04/04/01.asp
The creationist pretence that evolution means throwing out god is
exposed as yet another creationist lie!
Are believers anti-evolution?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
Unfortunately for you, many creationist claims are nothing but lies,
misquotes, distortions, absurdities, or stupidity. Here's 300 of
them:
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html
Here's an index to creationist claims with rebuttal:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
And is this really evidence of divine design:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Is this clear enough or do I need to spell it out? I guess I do.
Let's look at the quality of the argument presented on the website you
reference (www.truthorfallacy.com)
In their opening statement they say, "This could NOT be by accident",
but this isn't evidence, this is merely argument from incredulity.
Can't they tell the difference? Besides, if something as relatively
easy to grasp as evolution could not have happened by chancem, how did
a complex god ever get to be in existence?
Here's another: "If the cosmos began as the result of a "big bang" -
how are we to explain that all of these planetary objects are of near
perfect spherical shape?"
One question: What does this have to do with evolution? Evolution
deals with life, not cosmology.
But the fact is planets are not "of near perfect spherical shape" -
they come in all kinds of styles, shapes and sizes. All the large
ones are oblate spheroids, not perfect spheres and one word explains
all of this structure: gravity. Heard of that?
If some god had created the planets and wanted us to know it, he
*would* have made them perfect spheres - so perfect that no amount of
rationalization could explain them and we would be forced to consider
a divine origin.
Here's another lie from your web site "reference": "How do we explain
the missing link between man and the chimpanzee?" Easy - there isn't
one:
Anthropoidea:
http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Anthropoidea.htm
Hominid transition:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
And you call this website exercise in juvenile gullibity *evidence*?
No! It's not even close to being evidence. This kind of question is
worthy of a poorly educated five-year-old, not a scientist. Let me
ask you one: if we do not share a common ancestor with chimpanzees,
why do we have an almost identical genetic structure, **INCLUDING THE
SAME GENETIC MISTAKES**:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ ?
The gene that maketh man:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2772241.stm
Single mutation led to language:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/693744.stm
Fossil hominids - evidence for human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Evolution inside the computer:
http://xxx.infidels.org/~meta/getalife/coretierra.html
Why is it that the further back down the evolutionary road we go, the
greater is the difference between our genetic structure and that of
the organism we compare it with?
Here's a "missing" link:
Creature from the black lagoon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/124514.stm
http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/Eucritta.html
Here's another:
Sickle-clawed bird:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/sickle.htm
Here's another lie from your "reference": "Incredibly, evolution is
now taught in our schools as fact despite the lack of a single fossil
(among millions found) that indicates verifiable transition from one
species to another?"
Here's a reference in return:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
This FAQ lists known transitional fossils, with brief discussion of
why they are transitional, and refers back to scientific articles
which make or support the case. That's evidence. Not the dumbass
juvenile questions your web site reference is asking.
Another: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
Another: http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm#Transitionals
Evolution in the ocean:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram_article.html
Fossil bridges land and sea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stm
Here's an ant-wasp transitional:
http://research.amnh.org/entomology/social_insects/publications/ms_sphecomyrma.html
Archaeopteryx:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/archie.htm
Dinosaur-bird:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/879956.stm
Feathery fossil sheds light on flight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stm
Snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
Are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Examples of beneficial mutations in humans:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
Dog evolution:
http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/familydog.html
Here's another dumb question from your "reference": "Why should anyone
believe in this so-called "spontaneous generation" in which an
inanimate object becomes alive?"
Again this is nothing to do with evolution, but with abiogenesis.
See:
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html.
And:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
Evolution only really gets to play *after* life has arisen. Please
try to keep that straight. Clearly neither you nor your website
buddies have ever read works by people like the Nobel laureate
Christian de Duve - try reading "Vital Dust", which will help explain
pathways by which life could arise from so-called inanimate chemicals.
The one-word answer? **EVIDENCE**! The amino acids which form the
proteins from which we're made have been generated in laboratory
conditions deemed to represent conditions on a primitive Earth.
Such amino acids - the same kinds and distribution - are also found on
incoming meteorites, proving that they exist naturally. The Murchison
meteorite was found to have a mix of amino acids not dissimilar to
those produced in the Miller-Urey experiments:
(http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/local/www/jab/astrobiology/murchison.html).
Here are some relatively recent news items on the topic, which anyone
can find if they are truly interested in the truth, as opposed to
muddying the waters with juvenile messages in alt.atheism:
Cradle of life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Cells hint at life's origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
Ancient rock points to life's origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2098561.stm
Here's an example of dishonesty from your "reference": "The eye is so
complex that even Darwin acknowledged that it was a problem for his
theory."
But then he went right on to say, "Yet reason tells me, that if
numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very
imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be
shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and
the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any
variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal
under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing
that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection,
though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
(On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, by Charles
Darwin (1859), Chapter VI. Difficulties on Theory)
At least he had the integrity to discuss issues. How many creationist
web sites can you name that talk about the problems with *their*
"theory"? None, I'll bet.
And is the eye a problem? No!
http://www.wehi.edu.au/resources/vce_biol_science/articles/finkel3.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/What_use_is_half_an_eye%3F
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html
Here's a fallacy: "How could there be any survival during the
evolutionary process? A major reason irreducible complex systems
create such a challenge for evolution is the problem of survivability
of intermediate life forms."
First of all, let's dismiss the fallacy of "irreducible complex
systems" - there are none. Not even a mousetrap:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Then let's dismiss the fallacy of intermediate life forms:
Hello! We see intermediate forms only in hindsight! At any given
moment, there are no intermediate forms per se, that is, there is
nothing stranded in mid-process. And going through an intermediate
stage, which we recognize after the fact, is a process: a species is
declining to a possible extinction, or it's expanding successfully, or
it's holding its ground.
Everything we see alive today is the result of years of successful
evolution. Everything is at its pinnacle, and so it has always been
in the past. It's only as times and conditions change that organisms
struggle, and no amount of success guarantees your future. Organisms
that can adapt to new circumstances are the survivors, but in the
process of adapting, they change. After this has happened, we can see
the intermediate forms. They may have died out, but we see their
remains in the fossil record. Then again, the intermediate forms may
have survived in their old habitat while their new versions - their
distant offspring - flourished in a new environment. It's really
quite simple if you actually *think* about it.
Here's another dumbly gullible question: "The very laws of physics and
the abundance of many kinds of "elements" and unexplainable
"phenomenon" would suggest the plan of a designer."
Well duhh! If we hadn't had these things we would've done something
other than what we did do having access to these things!
If this designer is so great, how come he or she or it didn't do a
better job?
http://tinyurl.com/3m7x4
http://tinyurl.com/5gokj
How about this lie: "Even scientists cannot fully explain how massive
tons of water can be suspended up in the atmosphere"
I'd like to know how the creationists can explain how even more water
- enough to plunge the Earth under five miles of it in a global flood
was suspended up there. And where it went afterwards! Now that *is*
scientifically impossible.
How about this for stupid: "How do we explain the many fruit-bearing
trees that provide such a variety of food for humans?"
How do we epxlain the massive numbers of trees and other plants that
offer not a thing for us, given that Genesis 1:29 claims we were given
*every* herb bearing seed and *every* tree for fruit? Most plants are
not edible (for humans), or provide little good nutrition. Many are
downright poisonous. The only reason we eat so well today (that is,
those of us who are lucky enough to be born in places where people do
eat well) is not because of anything any god did but because of our
own technology. If god did such a good job, why did we have to
cross-breed the produce endlessly to make it better? Why are so few
places on Earth really good for growing things? Why do some food
plants and trees not grow well in many places? Why are many fruits
and nuts so hard to get at - hard shells, thick rinds, little pulp,
poor nutrition, etc, etc? Why doesn't every locale grow a huge
variety? if the question your web site asks is so valid, why does the
Hunger site (http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites)
report that 24,000 people die of starvation *EVERY SINGLE DAY*, 18,000
of whom are children??????
Why don't creationists ask the same questions of their own "theory"
that they ask of the evolutionists? What are they scared of? The
truth? Or the fallacy?!
Here's another fallacy: "Have you ever pondered as to why each species
of the animal kingdom all look very much alike, but humanity possesses
a uniqueness of identification?"
Lie! Other animals can recognize one another just as well as we can.
Not all of them. For many animals they don't care about specific
individuals. It's not necessary for their survival, but what we
consider higher animals do - the apes, for example, and even monkeys.
Another unsupported lie: "Have you ever pondered the diverse
capabilities of the human race? Life as we know it could not exist if
everyone possessed the same characteristics... as found in any species
of the animal kingdom."
Of course this bland statement adequately explains why chimpanzees
have culture and some Japanese macaques have developed skills in
dealing with food that other macaques do not have:
Chimpanzee culture:
http://chimp.st-and.ac.uk/cultures/intro.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/2000/chimpso.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/370807.stm
macaque info and culture:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/212.shtml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0206_040206_tvmacaques.html
Another blind, unsupported claim: "Have you ever pondered the human
conscience - a faculty that every person possesses - that conveys our
realization of right and wrong."
Not every society shares "our" views. If it did, there would not be
terrorists and despots and cruel regimes. Nazi Germany would never
have got a start in the 1930's. And who says "our" morality is so
great? The United states, with its overwhelming claims of devotion to
a god ("more than 95 percent of Americans claim to believe in God"
http://tinyurl.com/4vvsm), has more serial killers than any other
nation and "over 2.2 million people currently incarcerated in the US,
giving the US the highest per capita prison population in the
industrialised world."
(http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_10121.shtml)
So much for that "argument". Clearly your web site 'reference" has a
long way to go before they can make a case.
Now let me ask you a few questions.
If your god created us especially and perfectly for specific purposes,
why are we only 600 genes away from mice?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
Just how hard would it be to differ by 300 genes apiece over time?
Assuming an average size of 100,000 base pairs per gene and a common
ancestor, this is nothing more than one base pair every two years.
How hard is that? What would prevent it?
Creationists can't even define what a "kind" is, so how can they
pretend there's a valid reason why one "kind" cannot change into
another "kind"? They cannot even pretend to know what such a
mechanism is or how it would work. Do you seriously think such
cluelessness is evidence?
If there isn't evolution, how do you explain a fish with fingers?:
http://sln.fi.edu/qa98/biology/journals/part14.html
Even the modern frog fish has a similar arrangment - kind of legs on
which it walks:
http://www.divetrip.com/komodo/komodo09.jpg
Here's a lungfish of sizeable proportions:
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/far/12588.html
Here's a mudskipper:
http://www.robertpickett.co.uk/images/MUDSKIPPER-004.jpg
And a walking catfish which, if you're not careful, will literally
climb out of your fish tank and take a stroll:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/WalkingCatfish/WalkingCatfish.html
Add amphibians and reptiles, throw in the monotremes, and you have
living examples of pretty much every step you need to come out of the
water, onto the land and turn into a mammal! And there are no
transitionals? I've just given you living examples of what a
transitional can look like.
You can't grow a giraffe's neck? What's an okapi if it isn't a living
example of what a transitional giraffe would look like:
http://www.places-to-go.org.uk/Photos/LondonZoo_Okapi.jpg
The okapi was unknown to Europeans until 1901. If they had become
extinct, all we would have is their bones and the creationists would
be saying, "That's not a transitional, the evolutionists are making it
up!" Unfortuately for creationists, okapis are alive and well, and
living in the Congo. It turns out that they're members of the giraffe
family.
Here's a database of large meteorite impacts on Earth. The evidence
is there. Fortunately, these occurred before humans existed, so they
were no problem for us - or for evolutionists to incorporate for that
matter, but they are a problem for creationists since none of the
massive impacts, which would have been felt globally, are mentioned in
any way, shape, or form in the Bible, supposedly a complete history of
our planet from its inception:
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort.html
Why is that, do you suppose?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
16 Sep 2004 09:11:42 PM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com>...
I notice that you don't have the cajones to attempt a rebuttal of my
Sep 12th refutation of your lies. All that remains is to thank you
sincerely for conclusively demonstrating evolution for us. Before our
very eyes, you turned from a jackass into a chicken.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
17 Sep 2004 05:19:46 PM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2004 19:11:42 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com>...
I notice that you don't have the cajones to attempt a rebuttal of my
Sep 12th refutation of your lies. All that remains is to thank you
sincerely for conclusively demonstrating evolution for us. Before our
very eyes, you turned from a jackass into a chicken.
Hmmmm....wouldn't that be the Cretinist version of evolution?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth or Fallacy? |
17 Sep 2004 10:33:10 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<4nomk05ia71682frv6ttm97ejj7dcfrf5c@4ax.com>...
On 16 Sep 2004 19:11:42 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
"Robert Clark" <recloser@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10k6c4m9fjo0d66@corp.supernews.com>...
I notice that you don't have the cajones to attempt a rebuttal of my
Sep 12th refutation of your lies. All that remains is to thank you
sincerely for conclusively demonstrating evolution for us. Before our
very eyes, you turned from a jackass into a chicken.
Hmmmm....wouldn't that be the Cretinist version of evolution?
Aah! You know it!
B.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
