| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2003 11:15:44 AM |
| Object: |
Biochemistry & Evolution |
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
.
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 08:08:33 AM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Behe believes in an old earth and evolution, especially evolution of the
heart, eyes, and almost all body parts in direct conflict with what you
believe and what you wrote. He in fact says nothing about Biblical
Creationism and what he writes contradicts that very idea. Perhaps you
should try and write something factual, it would be refreshing.
Lane
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
23 Nov 2003 08:41:58 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Behe describes only certain complex molecular systems as "irreducibly
complex." He doesn't use this term of organs like the heart or eyes, for
good reason. The eyes, for example, *aren't* irreducibly complex; they'll
certainly work even if not all parts are operating at peak efficiency (have
you never met anyone who wore glasses?), and even if some parts are missing.
You can have an eye without a lens (some creatures, like the chambered
nautilus, do); you can even have an eye useful for very limited vision with
only a small retina and no focusing apparatus at all. You can have a heart
with imperfect separation of the ventricles (a common defect in humans, and
the normal state in, e.g. crocodiles), or with only three chambers rather
than four (like most reptiles), or only two (like fish).
Even the molecular systems cited by Behe are not impossible to evolve. Behe
defines a system as "irreducibly complex" if it will no longer function,
even imperfectly, if one component is removed. But this overlooks the fact
that components themselves can evolve, gaining or losing functions; a
component which used to perform two functions can lose one function and
improve at the other one, after a new component is added to take over the
lost function. Behe also overlooks the fact that not all the functionality
of a system may be needed at the beginning -- new abilities can arise when
they are useful but not necessary, and become necessary later. This applies
also to increasing complexity and capabilities of organs like the heart or
eye.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
Yet there are species in the world today, which don't seem to be going
extinct, even though they lack some of the components of our own immune
system. This suggests that the entire panoply and capability of the immune
system was not needed by our distant ancestors.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
You can state this, but it is not true.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Wrong, but thank you for playing.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nobody Special" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
23 Nov 2003 11:50:53 AM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Why can't this be explained by incremental change? Small changes over time
can result in a very complex "end-product" (which is probably changing as
well).
.
|
|
|
| User: "IknowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 11:23:48 AM |
|
|
In article <1s6wb.18396$Wy4.9695@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Nobody Special" <nospam@nospam4me.com> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Why can't this be explained by incremental change? Small changes over time
can result in a very complex "end-product" (which is probably changing as
well).
_____________________________________________________
If you can make information increase with the "incremental change" go ahead...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
28 Nov 2003 03:56:17 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2411030923480001@pm1-12.kalama.com:
In article <1s6wb.18396$Wy4.9695@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Nobody Special" <nospam@nospam4me.com> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" < > wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field
of biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and
other body parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know
was that these complex organs and systems operate at peak
efficiency and require all their parts to be present and
functioning. Behe called this "irreducible complexity" and shows
how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are
indeed irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the
immune system did not function from the very start we would have
died many times over from diseases or out system would have
attacked itself(autoimmune diseases)the product of malfunctioning
brought on by harmful mutations. These wonderous organs are the
product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord Jesus Christ who created
them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by
chance, accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Why can't this be explained by incremental change? Small changes
over time can result in a very complex "end-product" (which is
probably changing as well).
_____________________________________________________
If you can make information increase with the "incremental change" go
ahead...
Information increases with every mutation not already in the genome.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
28 Nov 2003 04:37:17 PM |
|
|
DAVE!!! It is great to hear from you. I hope that you are doing well.
Tom
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9441B6AE3CA93doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2411030923480001@pm1-12.kalama.com:
In article <1s6wb.18396$Wy4.9695@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Nobody Special" <nospam@nospam4me.com> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field
of biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and
other body parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know
was that these complex organs and systems operate at peak
efficiency and require all their parts to be present and
functioning. Behe called this "irreducible complexity" and shows
how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are
indeed irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the
immune system did not function from the very start we would have
died many times over from diseases or out system would have
attacked itself(autoimmune diseases)the product of malfunctioning
brought on by harmful mutations. These wonderous organs are the
product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord Jesus Christ who created
them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by
chance, accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Why can't this be explained by incremental change? Small changes
over time can result in a very complex "end-product" (which is
probably changing as well).
_____________________________________________________
If you can make information increase with the "incremental change" go
ahead...
Information increases with every mutation not already in the genome.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
28 Nov 2003 05:24:20 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in news:vsfjh37e3geob0@corp.supernews.com:
DAVE!!! It is great to hear from you. I hope that you are doing well.
As well as can be expected. Hurricane Juan destroyed my home and I moved
4000 miles.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 12:47:14 PM |
|
|
Why can't this be explained by incremental change? Small changes over time
can result in a very complex "end-product" (which is probably changing as
well).
If you can make information increase with the "incremental change" go ahead...
I get it, then, that you admit you have been lying...
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 11:23:25 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (IknowHimDoYou) wrote
in <IknowHim-2411030923480001@pm1-12.kalama.com>:
In article <1s6wb.18396$Wy4.9695@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Nobody Special" <nospam@nospam4me.com> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" < > wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Why can't this be explained by incremental change? Small changes over time
can result in a very complex "end-product" (which is probably changing as
well).
_____________________________________________________
If you can make information increase with the "incremental change" go ahead...
What do you mean by information?
Shannon doesn't care what the information is, just how long the
transmission and the quality of it. In that sense, any longer DNA
molecule has more information than the prior, shorter one, even if the
information was imperfectly transmitted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
23 Nov 2003 11:54:00 AM |
|
|
Nobody Special wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Why can't this be explained by incremental change? Small changes over time
can result in a very complex "end-product" (which is probably changing as
well).
Accepting that would be out of character of "IKnowshit".
He prefers lying for his gods.
Seppo P.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
25 Nov 2003 06:35:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:50:53 GMT, "Nobody Special"
<nospam@nospam4me.com> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com...
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Why can't this be explained by incremental change? Small changes over time
can result in a very complex "end-product" (which is probably changing as
well).
Evolution teaches gain, even though that cannot be
demonstrated. There would have been no gain in
non-working parts and therefore, natural selection
would have selected against it. Unless you believe
that evolution is an entity with a thought process of
its own, which can see into the future and has a design
plan, at which point, you deify evolution.
--
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
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution
is a fact of life are great con men and the story
they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.
In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota
of fact. - Dr. T. N. Tahmisian
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
23 Nov 2003 12:10:21 PM |
|
|
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution.
That a human being capable of using a PC to post to newsgroups could
ever be as stupid and arrogant as IKHDY is much more unbelievable. This
"irreducible complexity" claim has been debunked I-don't-know-how-many
years ago.
So now we can state:
That IKHDY is still the same old liar and idiot.
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
23 Nov 2003 07:03:19 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: (IknowHimDoYou)
Date written: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:15:44 -0800
MsgID:<IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com>
How can we know Him when He is christianity's missing link?
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Evolution does not claim that organs came about by chance or accident. Evolution
claims Specific Adaptation by Imposed Demands. It is specific, not random. Try
another guess.
Now let's examine your proposed alternative to evolution: God...
Why did God create the world complete with built-in weathering patterns,
millions of years of sedimentary deposits, crude-oil deposits, and fossils...all
in six days? Why? What would be the point in making the earth look as though it
actually were 4.5 billion years old? The usual answer is that Satan created all
of these things in order to deceive us into believing in an old earth but then
that raises the issue of why Satan did a better job at his re-creation then God
did at his creation? Satan left no stone unturned in his effort to hide the
evidence of a creation, while the best that God could do was dedicate two
chapters to it in an ancient textbook filled with contradictions and
inaccuracies. Satan must be not only more intelligent than God, he must also be
more powerful.
In the Garden of Eden, where God placed Adam, God had also planted a very
special tree there which he called The tree of knowledge of good and EVIL. Where
did God get his knowledge of evil from that He placed in the tree, since God had
created the tree and NOT Satan? What is even stranger here is why would God want
to offer a way for Adam and his wife to come to know evil...not through Satan,
but through God himself? Which is more evil: the person who does an evil deed or
the accomplice who teaches that person how to do an evil deed? Furthermore, as
the Bible teaches us, whatever is in one's heart will be manifested by whatever
issues forth from their mouth. And just what exactly issued forth from God's own
mouth, and thereby revealed what kind of heart God had? Why all the evil the
world could ever know, knowledge that he made available to Adam and Eve in the
Tree of Evil Knowledge.
The eye is a perfect example of the lack of an intelligent creator's helping
hand. If the creator is so intelligent, why does the creator kluge things
together, by piling one design on top of another, instead of redesigning them to
work right when necessary? For example, the retina of the eye: The optic nerves
are routed in front of the rods and cones instead of behind them like even a
beginning engineer would have enough common logical sense not to do. Why would
anyone want to believe in a God who is incompetent enough to make blunders like
these?
Now let's look at the matter of physical evidence. Do you have evidence of a
God? I am not talking about the hearsay of a book or the testimony of a biased
witness, I am talking about actual evidence. Of course not, you aren't even
close to being able to offer physical evidence of any kind whatsoever. While
evolution has (in some but not all places) incomplete, partial, and even
downright inconclusive evidence, that is far more convincing and logically
acceptable then the complete lack of evidence that you present. Do you have so
much as a strand of hair from God, a bone fragment from an angel, or how about
even a footprint from when he used to walk about teaching in the synagogues? All
you have is a contradictory book and an empty grave. Every piece of evidence you
could ever hope for, seems to only come up empty handed for you. Even at this
very moment, I have a fossil paperweight sitting on my desktop as just one small
piece of proof that evolution does happen and that alone is a thousand times
more evidence in favor of the evolutionary theory, then you could ever dream of
having in support of your God theory.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 01:31:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:03:19 -0700, The_Sage <theeSage@azrmci.net>
wrote:
Reply to article by: (IknowHimDoYou)
Date written: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:15:44 -0800
MsgID:<IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com>
How can we know Him when He is christianity's missing link?
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Evolution does not claim that organs came about by chance or accident. Evolution
claims Specific Adaptation by Imposed Demands. It is specific, not random. Try
another guess.
Now let's examine your proposed alternative to evolution: God...
Why did God create the world complete with built-in weathering patterns,
millions of years of sedimentary deposits, crude-oil deposits, and fossils...all
in six days? Why? What would be the point in making the earth look as though it
actually were 4.5 billion years old? The usual answer is that Satan created all
of these things in order to deceive us into believing in an old earth but then
that raises the issue of why Satan did a better job at his re-creation then God
did at his creation? Satan left no stone unturned in his effort to hide the
evidence of a creation, while the best that God could do was dedicate two
chapters to it in an ancient textbook filled with contradictions and
inaccuracies. Satan must be not only more intelligent than God, he must also be
more powerful.
In the Garden of Eden, where God placed Adam, God had also planted a very
special tree there which he called The tree of knowledge of good and EVIL. Where
did God get his knowledge of evil from that He placed in the tree, since God had
created the tree and NOT Satan? What is even stranger here is why would God want
to offer a way for Adam and his wife to come to know evil...not through Satan,
but through God himself? Which is more evil: the person who does an evil deed or
the accomplice who teaches that person how to do an evil deed? Furthermore, as
the Bible teaches us, whatever is in one's heart will be manifested by whatever
issues forth from their mouth. And just what exactly issued forth from God's own
mouth, and thereby revealed what kind of heart God had? Why all the evil the
world could ever know, knowledge that he made available to Adam and Eve in the
Tree of Evil Knowledge.
The eye is a perfect example of the lack of an intelligent creator's helping
hand. If the creator is so intelligent, why does the creator kluge things
together, by piling one design on top of another, instead of redesigning them to
work right when necessary? For example, the retina of the eye: The optic nerves
are routed in front of the rods and cones instead of behind them like even a
beginning engineer would have enough common logical sense not to do. Why would
anyone want to believe in a God who is incompetent enough to make blunders like
these?
Now let's look at the matter of physical evidence. Do you have evidence of a
God?
As it is with lower primates and life forms, there are yet
some homo sapiens that haven't evolved such that they are cognizant of
the metaphysical, nor have they developed the sensory capacity to
"sense" God. Why evidence is necessary for those that are
sensory-muted is a question that is rooted in a diminutive reality.
Not wanting to seem comparatively lacking relative to their peers,
their insistence that the only acceptable and palatable things in the
universe are those things that are empirically quantifiable is
understandable, if not something to be pitied. Even evidential
anecdotes and circumstantial evidence, such as that afforded by the
milk-sipping Ganesh, fail in the bid to influence thinking confined by
measurements and the paradigm of modern science.
It is not necessarily that they have not ascended as far as
have those that discern the supernatural - it is as much as they have
evolved "differently." That which is often divine to the irreligious
is the egotistic showcasing of their gaudy erudition, if not the
narcissistic indulgence of hedonism. Naturally, as life has little
meaning beyond what one invests in it, as is the consequential
philosophy of the avowed atheist, since any fulfillment provided by
metaphysical pursuits or reconciliation with the Creator are excluded,
this is entirely apprehensible. However, intelligentsia additionally
comprises those that legitimately lay claim to insuperable erudition
and simultaneously defer to a Creator. Suffice it to say, these
individuals are assuredly advanced, evolutionarily speaking, in light
of their profound cerebration and predilection for piety, viz. Isaac
Newton.
Of course, it may be inferred, considering that mutation from
one form to another in the basic Evolution model is generally subtle,
that those on the periphery of true spiritual cognizance, attribute
the immanent spark of spiritual intuition to whatever suits the fancy
or that which immediately sates spiritual hunger, the result being the
contrivance of a panoply of spurious religions. Fortunately, the
Creator has not squelched the evolution of some into the empyrean
realm of spiritual fulfillment. These are those that are able to
discern their Creator and also logically confute allegations of
fallibility of the World of God posited by the evolutionarily
impoverished. They don't require "evidence" and appreciate why none
can be produced.
Regards,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
25 Nov 2003 09:13:16 AM |
|
|
As it is with lower primates and life forms, there are yet
some homo sapiens that haven't evolved such that they are cognizant of
the metaphysical, nor have they developed the sensory capacity to
"sense" God.
1. metaphysical != christian
2. metaphysical != genesis fairy tale
3. What did your "god" teach you about insulting others?
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
25 Nov 2003 10:50:45 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:13:16 +0100, "Thore Schmechtig"
<WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
As it is with lower primates and life forms, there are yet
some homo sapiens that haven't evolved such that they are cognizant of
the metaphysical, nor have they developed the sensory capacity to
"sense" God.
1. metaphysical != christian
2. metaphysical != genesis fairy tale
3. What did your "god" teach you about insulting others?
Evolution being the sterile process that it is, I fail to see
the insult. If Evolution is fact and is nothing other than a process
of mutation or change without ascendency, then no insult should be
taken. If indignation results from wrongful inferences, then perhaps
there is some argument for Evolutionary ascension in the cerebral
realm. Perhaps rereading the definition for "metaphysical" will aid
the flummoxed reader.
Regards,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Litchfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
25 Nov 2003 01:51:28 PM |
|
|
"Hector" <Melitus@Dithyrambic.com> wrote in message
news:0m07svo9bkbl5eagl2jbiuii7jurqms0ho@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:13:16 +0100, "Thore Schmechtig"
<WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
As it is with lower primates and life forms, there are yet
some homo sapiens that haven't evolved such that they are cognizant of
the metaphysical, nor have they developed the sensory capacity to
"sense" God.
1. metaphysical != christian
2. metaphysical != genesis fairy tale
3. What did your "god" teach you about insulting others?
Evolution being the sterile process that it is, I fail to see
the insult. If Evolution is fact and is nothing other than a process
of mutation or change without ascendency, then no insult should be
taken. If indignation results from wrongful inferences, then perhaps
there is some argument for Evolutionary ascension in the cerebral
realm. Perhaps rereading the definition for "metaphysical" will aid
the flummoxed reader.
Flummoxed!! ROTFLMAO! I haven't seen that word used in decades. No wonder I
gave up taking you seriously some time ago.
Shalom,
Bill
Regards,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
25 Nov 2003 03:13:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:51:28 -0800, "Bill Litchfield"
<jomarie@hscis.net> wrote:
"Hector" <Melitus@Dithyrambic.com> wrote in message
news:0m07svo9bkbl5eagl2jbiuii7jurqms0ho@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:13:16 +0100, "Thore Schmechtig"
<WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
As it is with lower primates and life forms, there are yet
some homo sapiens that haven't evolved such that they are cognizant of
the metaphysical, nor have they developed the sensory capacity to
"sense" God.
1. metaphysical != christian
2. metaphysical != genesis fairy tale
3. What did your "god" teach you about insulting others?
Evolution being the sterile process that it is, I fail to see
the insult. If Evolution is fact and is nothing other than a process
of mutation or change without ascendency, then no insult should be
taken. If indignation results from wrongful inferences, then perhaps
there is some argument for Evolutionary ascension in the cerebral
realm. Perhaps rereading the definition for "metaphysical" will aid
the flummoxed reader.
Flummoxed!! ROTFLMAO! I haven't seen that word used in decades. No wonder I
gave up taking you seriously some time ago.
If you haven't seen it used in decades, then you haven't read
the leading articles in the St. Louis Dispatch this last month.
Though, I suppose you don't take the St. Louis Dispatch, and it's
left-leaning reporting, seriously either. Don't read the St. Louis
Dispatch? Let's try the New York Times - a simple search yielded 281
articles that used "flummoxed" since 1996. Ok, ok, the recent
imbroglio at the New York Times invariably diminishes the credibility
of the use of "flummoxed," of course. Well then, let's try the West
Coast. The LA Times has at least 13 articles that employ "flummoxed"
since the year 2000. I'll have to admit it's not as popular in the
Southwest as it is in the North East. Well, then let's return to
America's heartland. The Chicago Sun Times has an article as recently
as September 13th, 2003, to wit:
"The son of singing cowboy Tex Ritter, who actually tried to
discourage his son from acting, Mr. Ritter worked steadily in movies
and on TV from his 20s onward. He had tremendous range as an actor,
but, as a master of the double take and at appearing frazzled or
flummoxed, it was in comedies that he truly stood out."
Not enough? Let's try Chicago's Mr. Big, the Trib. A simple search
on their site yields a meager 162 results for "flummoxed." In fact
the latest article to print "flummoxed" is dated Nov. 18, 2003.
Uncanny coincidence, isn't it?
To get a better sense of the national usage, let's look at a
national paper - USA Today: 65 results dating from 1987. Certainly
not as respectable a quantity as that of the Trib or the Times, but
none the less telling.
So, major newspapers don't quite make the grade in an appeal
to authority? Let's try a major magazine - US News & World Report:
26 results dating from '95. And just for good form, here's the link;
http://www.usnews.com/search/Search?keywords=flummoxed&searchtype=1&x=17&y=19
That's all well and fine. How about a major network news source?
CBS.com has 10 results dating back to 2000. Not too shabby.
What about an international publication? Let's try the Jerusalem
Post, 'k? Impressive! 22 results dating from 1996 to as recently as
May 23, 2003.
What about a simple 'net search?
A quick search on Google yields 12700 results.
AlltheWeb? Just a paltry 59,571 results. Now that's positively
disappointing.
Might is give the good ship Ebay a whirl: 18 results (the first
auction to end in approximately 22 hrs)!
Yes, this well illustrates that this poster is a flummoxed throwback.
Searching the web for "respectfully,"
Hector
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 08:09:00 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: Hector <Melitus@Dithyrambic.com>
Date written: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:31:16 -0800
MsgID:<r0n4svsaobn7lectdh8uhsetb6a7d9qpld@4ax.com>
As it is with lower primates and life forms, there are yet
some homo sapiens that haven't evolved such that they are cognizant of
the metaphysical, nor have they developed the sensory capacity to
"sense" God. Why evidence is necessary for those that are
sensory-muted is a question that is rooted in a diminutive reality.
Not wanting to seem comparatively lacking relative to their peers,
their insistence that the only acceptable and palatable things in the
universe are those things that are empirically quantifiable is
understandable, if not something to be pitied. Even evidential
anecdotes and circumstantial evidence, such as that afforded by the
milk-sipping Ganesh, fail in the bid to influence thinking confined by
measurements and the paradigm of modern science.
Just because you say it is so does not make it so. That is called butt-arse
stupid blind faith -- not intelligent thinking. In order for your statement to
be factual, you will have to prove that certain people can "sense" the
metaphysical and certain people cannot. You will fail, just like all those who
have fallen before you have failed.
It is not necessarily that they have not ascended as far as
have those that discern the supernatural - it is as much as they have
evolved "differently." That which is often divine to the irreligious
is the egotistic showcasing of their gaudy erudition, if not the
narcissistic indulgence of hedonism. Naturally, as life has little
meaning beyond what one invests in it, as is the consequential
philosophy of the avowed atheist, since any fulfillment provided by
metaphysical pursuits or reconciliation with the Creator are excluded,
this is entirely apprehensible. However, intelligentsia additionally
comprises those that legitimately lay claim to insuperable erudition
and simultaneously defer to a Creator. Suffice it to say, these
individuals are assuredly advanced, evolutionarily speaking, in light
of their profound cerebration and predilection for piety, viz. Isaac
Newton.
There was a time in history when everyone believed in god and the church ruled
supreme. You know what that time was called? The Dark Ages. Like the dinosaurs,
blind faith believers had their time and they failed to come through and are on
their way to extinction. Let's not repeat history.
Of course, it may be inferred, considering that mutation from
one form to another in the basic Evolution model is generally subtle,
that those on the periphery of true spiritual cognizance, attribute
the immanent spark of spiritual intuition to whatever suits the fancy
or that which immediately sates spiritual hunger, the result being the
contrivance of a panoply of spurious religions. Fortunately, the
Creator has not squelched the evolution of some into the empyrean
realm of spiritual fulfillment. These are those that are able to
discern their Creator and also logically confute allegations of
fallibility of the World of God posited by the evolutionarily
impoverished. They don't require "evidence" and appreciate why none
can be produced.
The only people who don't require evidence are those who have never had any
evidence and never will have any evidence. They are just like the blind leading
the blind and they both will fall into a ditch.
Love,
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 10:13:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:09:00 -0700, The_Sage <theeSage@azrmci.net>
wrote:
Reply to article by: Hector <Melitus@Dithyrambic.com>
Date written: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:31:16 -0800
MsgID:<r0n4svsaobn7lectdh8uhsetb6a7d9qpld@4ax.com>
As it is with lower primates and life forms, there are yet
some homo sapiens that haven't evolved such that they are cognizant of
the metaphysical, nor have they developed the sensory capacity to
"sense" God. Why evidence is necessary for those that are
sensory-muted is a question that is rooted in a diminutive reality.
Not wanting to seem comparatively lacking relative to their peers,
their insistence that the only acceptable and palatable things in the
universe are those things that are empirically quantifiable is
understandable, if not something to be pitied. Even evidential
anecdotes and circumstantial evidence, such as that afforded by the
milk-sipping Ganesh, fail in the bid to influence thinking confined by
measurements and the paradigm of modern science.
Just because you say it is so does not make it so. That is called butt-arse
stupid blind faith -- not intelligent thinking. In order for your statement to
be factual, you will have to prove that certain people can "sense" the
metaphysical and certain people cannot. You will fail, just like all those who
have fallen before you have failed.
It is not necessarily that they have not ascended as far as
have those that discern the supernatural - it is as much as they have
evolved "differently." That which is often divine to the irreligious
is the egotistic showcasing of their gaudy erudition, if not the
narcissistic indulgence of hedonism. Naturally, as life has little
meaning beyond what one invests in it, as is the consequential
philosophy of the avowed atheist, since any fulfillment provided by
metaphysical pursuits or reconciliation with the Creator are excluded,
this is entirely apprehensible. However, intelligentsia additionally
comprises those that legitimately lay claim to insuperable erudition
and simultaneously defer to a Creator. Suffice it to say, these
individuals are assuredly advanced, evolutionarily speaking, in light
of their profound cerebration and predilection for piety, viz. Isaac
Newton.
There was a time in history when everyone believed in god and the church ruled
supreme. You know what that time was called? The Dark Ages. Like the dinosaurs,
blind faith believers had their time and they failed to come through and are on
their way to extinction. Let's not repeat history.
Forgive my ironic skepticism, however, I find it hard to
believe that a thinker whose contributions were fundamental to the Age
of Enlightenment was unable to think for himself. And I would be
quite incredulous if the claim were that he was coerced to be a
theologian of some repute.
Regards,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
25 Nov 2003 09:50:08 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: Hector <Melitus@Dithyrambic.com>
Date written: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:13:08 -0600
MsgID:<89l5sv0vf0ihglmgvlt2p0ivsn65k1e1ai@4ax.com>
There was a time in history when everyone believed in god and the church ruled
supreme. You know what that time was called? The Dark Ages. Like the dinosaurs,
blind faith believers had their time and they failed to come through and are on
their way to extinction. Let's not repeat history.
Forgive my ironic skepticism, however, I find it hard to
believe that a thinker whose contributions were fundamental to the Age
of Enlightenment was unable to think for himself. And I would be
quite incredulous if the claim were that he was coerced to be a
theologian of some repute.
What does that have to do with the Dark Ages that your kind created? The facts
speak louder than your denial of history. It has been recorded in stone for all
to see. You christians had your heyday and you blew it.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
26 Nov 2003 01:28:39 AM |
|
|
The_Sage writes:
What does that have to do with the Dark Ages that your kind created? The
facts speak louder than your denial of history. It has been recorded in
stone for all to see. You christians had your heyday and you blew it.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. For example, the "dark ages"
descended upon the Western Empire due to a lack of centralized government as
a result of the conquests of the "barbarians." Now, I don't think they're
likely to have a centralized Christian government if they don't have a
centralized government.
The Eastern Empire, however, fared better than the west due to a stronger
government, good diplomacy, less wealth to attract the invaders, luck of
geographic location, etc. It is generally considered that there was no
"dark ages" in the east. In fact, it was they who preserved the Greco-Roman
culture and knowledge, to the delight of the Enlightenment. And take a wild
guess what was their religion of choice. (Although I do agree they could
have done better, so don't get me wrong. But let's be fair.)
--
"If an opponent rebuts a claim of irrelevance, the other party must reply to
the opponent's rebuttal of the claim." -- J.F. Till
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
26 Nov 2003 06:06:25 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: 386sx <386sx@email.com>
Date written: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:28:39 -0500
MsgID:<m2isl74mhkXx386xX.fsf@jms.localhost.localnet>
What does that have to do with the Dark Ages that your kind created? The
facts speak louder than your denial of history. It has been recorded in
stone for all to see. You christians had your heyday and you blew it.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. For example, the "dark ages"
descended upon the Western Empire due to a lack of centralized government as
a result of the conquests of the "barbarians." Now, I don't think they're
likely to have a centralized Christian government if they don't have a
centralized government.
The Eastern Empire, however, fared better than the west due to a stronger
government, good diplomacy, less wealth to attract the invaders, luck of
geographic location, etc. It is generally considered that there was no
"dark ages" in the east. In fact, it was they who preserved the Greco-Roman
culture and knowledge, to the delight of the Enlightenment. And take a wild
guess what was their religion of choice. (Although I do agree they could
have done better, so don't get me wrong. But let's be fair.)
That doesn't change the fact that christians were in charge, most everyone
believed in god, and the church ruled supreme as the ulitimate authority...
....and it was the most horrible time anyone lived through in history.
As for the east, it wasn't part of the Dark Ages and it had no christian
majority, church, Crusades, or Inquisitions either.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
26 Nov 2003 07:20:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:06:25 -0700, The_Sage <theeSage@azrmci.net>
wrote:
Reply to article by: 386sx <386sx@email.com>
Date written: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:28:39 -0500
MsgID:<m2isl74mhkXx386xX.fsf@jms.localhost.localnet>
What does that have to do with the Dark Ages that your kind created? The
facts speak louder than your denial of history. It has been recorded in
stone for all to see. You christians had your heyday and you blew it.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. For example, the "dark ages"
descended upon the Western Empire due to a lack of centralized government as
a result of the conquests of the "barbarians." Now, I don't think they're
likely to have a centralized Christian government if they don't have a
centralized government.
The Eastern Empire, however, fared better than the west due to a stronger
government, good diplomacy, less wealth to attract the invaders, luck of
geographic location, etc. It is generally considered that there was no
"dark ages" in the east. In fact, it was they who preserved the Greco-Roman
culture and knowledge, to the delight of the Enlightenment. And take a wild
guess what was their religion of choice. (Although I do agree they could
have done better, so don't get me wrong. But let's be fair.)
That doesn't change the fact that christians were in charge, most everyone
believed in god, and the church ruled supreme as the ulitimate authority...
...and it was the most horrible time anyone lived through in history.
Blame it on the Carolingian Renaissance.
As for the east, it wasn't part of the Dark Ages and it had no christian
majority, church, Crusades, or Inquisitions either.
Incredible.
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
27 Nov 2003 11:33:45 AM |
|
|
Reply to article by: Hector <Melitus@Dithyrambic.com>
Date written: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:20:28 -0600
MsgID:<95kasvcggg3duqa0kper5og4ig99ocku7c@4ax.com>
That doesn't change the fact that christians were in charge, most everyone
believed in god, and the church ruled supreme as the ulitimate authority...
...and it was the most horrible time anyone lived through in history.
Blame it on the Carolingian Renaissance.
That isn't blaming, that is scape-goating. The blame rest squarely on the
christians, as history has clearly recorded it as being.
As for the east, it wasn't part of the Dark Ages and it had no christian
majority, church, Crusades, or Inquisitions either.
Incredible.
Yes, incredible proof that not having a belief in god and not letting the church
reign supreme really did have a positive effect.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hector" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
26 Nov 2003 08:31:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:28:39 -0500, 386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote:
The_Sage writes:
What does that have to do with the Dark Ages that your kind created? The
facts speak louder than your denial of history. It has been recorded in
stone for all to see. You christians had your heyday and you blew it.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. For example, the "dark ages"
descended upon the Western Empire due to a lack of centralized government as
a result of the conquests of the "barbarians." Now, I don't think they're
likely to have a centralized Christian government if they don't have a
centralized government.
The Eastern Empire, however, fared better than the west due to a stronger
government, good diplomacy, less wealth to attract the invaders, luck of
geographic location, etc. It is generally considered that there was no
"dark ages" in the east. In fact, it was they who preserved the Greco-Roman
culture and knowledge, to the delight of the Enlightenment. And take a wild
guess what was their religion of choice. (Although I do agree they could
have done better, so don't get me wrong. But let's be fair.)
Justin the Apostate, though, did attempt to revert the
Byzantine Empire to paganism. His love of the Eleusian Mysteries and
Greek philosophy compelled him to reinvigorate pagan worship
throughout. He was envious of the structure and charity of
Christianity, as Will Durant elucidates in his "The Age of Faith," and
tried to conform paganism to emulate those characteristics. His
effort eventually failed, however.
I believe Islam contributed also to the endurance of classical
Greek and Roman writings and thought, if not only the resuscitation of
the Mathmatical Sciences, in its golden age. Of course, sacking the
Library of Alexandria may have benefited the Muslims immensely.
Respectfully,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
26 Nov 2003 08:42:19 AM |
|
|
in article 55b9svsdsenp6hlg9maf71vib47qbmn888@4ax.com, Hector at
Melitus@Dithyrambic.com wrote on 11/26/03 9:31 AM:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:28:39 -0500, 386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote:
The_Sage writes:
What does that have to do with the Dark Ages that your kind created? The
facts speak louder than your denial of history. It has been recorded in
stone for all to see. You christians had your heyday and you blew it.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. For example, the "dark ages"
descended upon the Western Empire due to a lack of centralized government as
a result of the conquests of the "barbarians." Now, I don't think they're
likely to have a centralized Christian government if they don't have a
centralized government.
The Eastern Empire, however, fared better than the west due to a stronger
government, good diplomacy, less wealth to attract the invaders, luck of
geographic location, etc. It is generally considered that there was no
"dark ages" in the east. In fact, it was they who preserved the Greco-Roman
culture and knowledge, to the delight of the Enlightenment. And take a wild
guess what was their religion of choice. (Although I do agree they could
have done better, so don't get me wrong. But let's be fair.)
Justin the Apostate, though, did attempt to revert the
Byzantine Empire to paganism. His love of the Eleusian Mysteries and
Greek philosophy compelled him to reinvigorate pagan worship
throughout. He was envious of the structure and charity of
Christianity, as Will Durant elucidates in his "The Age of Faith," and
tried to conform paganism to emulate those characteristics. His
effort eventually failed, however.
I believe Islam contributed also to the endurance of classical
Greek and Roman writings and thought, if not only the resuscitation of
the Mathmatical Sciences, in its golden age. Of course, sacking the
Library of Alexandria may have benefited the Muslims immensely.
There is considerable doubt that the Muslims sacked the Library.
http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm has some good information on the topic of
what happened to the Library.
Respectfully,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
26 Nov 2003 09:27:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:42:19 -0500, "Raymond E. Griffith"
<tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article 55b9svsdsenp6hlg9maf71vib47qbmn888@4ax.com, Hector at
Melitus@Dithyrambic.com wrote on 11/26/03 9:31 AM:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:28:39 -0500, 386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote:
The_Sage writes:
What does that have to do with the Dark Ages that your kind created? The
facts speak louder than your denial of history. It has been recorded in
stone for all to see. You christians had your heyday and you blew it.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. For example, the "dark ages"
descended upon the Western Empire due to a lack of centralized government as
a result of the conquests of the "barbarians." Now, I don't think they're
likely to have a centralized Christian government if they don't have a
centralized government.
The Eastern Empire, however, fared better than the west due to a stronger
government, good diplomacy, less wealth to attract the invaders, luck of
geographic location, etc. It is generally considered that there was no
"dark ages" in the east. In fact, it was they who preserved the Greco-Roman
culture and knowledge, to the delight of the Enlightenment. And take a wild
guess what was their religion of choice. (Although I do agree they could
have done better, so don't get me wrong. But let's be fair.)
Justin the Apostate, though, did attempt to revert the
Byzantine Empire to paganism. His love of the Eleusian Mysteries and
Greek philosophy compelled him to reinvigorate pagan worship
throughout. He was envious of the structure and charity of
Christianity, as Will Durant elucidates in his "The Age of Faith," and
tried to conform paganism to emulate those characteristics. His
effort eventually failed, however.
I believe Islam contributed also to the endurance of classical
Greek and Roman writings and thought, if not only the resuscitation of
the Mathmatical Sciences, in its golden age. Of course, sacking the
Library of Alexandria may have benefited the Muslims immensely.
There is considerable doubt that the Muslims sacked the Library.
http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm has some good information on the topic of
what happened to the Library.
Interesting link, Raymond. The following link has some
interesting, pertinent information, too:
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_AO/bswbao0604f2.html
Thanks,
Hector
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 07:18:22 PM |
|
|
in article r0n4svsaobn7lectdh8uhsetb6a7d9qpld@4ax.com, Hector at
Melitus@Dithyrambic.com wrote on 11/24/03 2:31 PM:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:03:19 -0700, The_Sage <theeSage@azrmci.net>
wrote:
Reply to article by: (IknowHimDoYou)
Date written: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:15:44 -0800
MsgID:<IknowHim-2311030915440001@pm4-37.kalama.com>
How can we know Him when He is christianity's missing link?
Biochemistry & Evolution
The evidence against the opinion of evolution is found in the field of
biochemistry science. Darwin thought that eyes, hearts, and other body
parts could evolve on their own. What he did not know was that these
complex organs and systems operate at peak efficiency and require all
their parts to be present and functioning. Behe called this "irreducible
complexity" and shows how they could not evolve step by step.
Blood clotting, immune systems and many others show that they are indeed
irreducibly complex with no possibility of evolution. If the immune system
did not function from the very start we would have died many times over
from diseases or out system would have attacked itself(autoimmune
diseases)the product of malfunctioning brought on by harmful mutations.
These wonderous organs are the product of a wonderful Designer, the Lord
Jesus Christ who created them complete for our use.
So now we can state:
Organs essential to life are far to complex to have come about by chance,
accident or set by step as evolution postulates.
Therefore, evolution is impossible.
Evolution does not claim that organs came about by chance or accident.
Evolution
claims Specific Adaptation by Imposed Demands. It is specific, not random.
Try
another guess.
Now let's examine your proposed alternative to evolution: God...
Why did God create the world complete with built-in weathering patterns,
millions of years of sedimentary deposits, crude-oil deposits, and
fossils...all
in six days? Why? What would be the point in making the earth look as though
it
actually were 4.5 billion years old? The usual answer is that Satan created
all
of these things in order to deceive us into believing in an old earth but
then
that raises the issue of why Satan did a better job at his re-creation then
God
did at his creation? Satan left no stone unturned in his effort to hide the
evidence of a creation, while the best that God could do was dedicate two
chapters to it in an ancient textbook filled with contradictions and
inaccuracies. Satan must be not only more intelligent than God, he must also
be
more powerful.
In the Garden of Eden, where God placed Adam, God had also planted a very
special tree there which he called The tree of knowledge of good and EVIL.
Where
did God get his knowledge of evil from that He placed in the tree, since God
had
created the tree and NOT Satan? What is even stranger here is why would God
want
to offer a way for Adam and his wife to come to know evil...not through
Satan,
but through God himself? Which is more evil: the person who does an evil deed
or
the accomplice who teaches that person how to do an evil deed? Furthermore,
as
the Bible teaches us, whatever is in one's heart will be manifested by
whatever
issues forth from their mouth. And just what exactly issued forth from God's
own
mouth, and thereby revealed what kind of heart God had? Why all the evil the
world could ever know, knowledge that he made available to Adam and Eve in
the
Tree of Evil Knowledge.
The eye is a perfect example of the lack of an intelligent creator's helping
hand. If the creator is so intelligent, why does the creator kluge things
together, by piling one design on top of another, instead of redesigning them
to
work right when necessary? For example, the retina of the eye: The optic
nerves
are routed in front of the rods and cones instead of behind them like even a
beginning engineer would have enough common logical sense not to do. Why
would
anyone want to believe in a God who is incompetent enough to make blunders
like
these?
Now let's look at the matter of physical evidence. Do you have evidence of a
God?
As it is with lower primates and life forms, there are yet
some homo sapiens that haven't evolved such that they are cognizant of
the metaphysical, nor have they developed the sensory capacity to
"sense" God. Why evidence is necessary for those that are
sensory-muted is a question that is rooted in a diminutive reality.
Not wanting to seem comparatively lacking relative to their peers,
their insistence that the only acceptable and palatable things in the
universe are those things that are empirically quantifiable is
understandable, if not something to be pitied. Even evidential
anecdotes and circumstantial evidence, such as that afforded by the
milk-sipping Ganesh, fail in the bid to influence thinking confined by
measurements and the paradigm of modern science.
It is not necessarily that they have not ascended as far as
have those that discern the supernatural - it is as much as they have
evolved "differently." That which is often divine to the irreligious
is the egotistic showcasing of their gaudy erudition, if not the
narcissistic indulgence of hedonism. Naturally, as life has little
meaning beyond what one invests in it, as is the consequential
philosophy of the avowed atheist, since any fulfillment provided by
metaphysical pursuits or reconciliation with the Creator are excluded,
this is entirely apprehensible. However, intelligentsia additionally
comprises those that legitimately lay claim to insuperable erudition
and simultaneously defer to a Creator. Suffice it to say, these
individuals are assuredly advanced, evolutionarily speaking, in light
of their profound cerebration and predilection for piety, viz. Isaac
Newton.
Of course, it may be inferred, considering that mutation from
one form to another in the basic Evolution model is generally subtle,
that those on the periphery of true spiritual cognizance, attribute
the immanent spark of spiritual intuition to whatever suits the fancy
or that which immediately sates spiritual hunger, the result being the
contrivance of a panoply of spurious religions. Fortunately, the
Creator has not squelched the evolution of some into the empyrean
realm of spiritual fulfillment. These are those that are able to
discern their Creator and also logically confute allegations of
fallibility of the World of God posited by the evolutionarily
impoverished. They don't require "evidence" and appreciate why none
can be produced.
Regards,
Hector
Hector, this is a pile of large-sounding words with no more design but to
deliver an insult. Proverbs 10:19 "In the multitude of words there wanteth
not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise."
However, since you denigrate the desire for evidence so much, let me quote
from James: "Show me your faith without works and I will show faith by my
works."
It seems that evidence is important in the Scriptures also. In fact,
according to Scripture, Christ felt it was important. Acts 1:3 "To whom also
he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being
seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the
kingdom of God:"
A word, sir. Strive to be understood. Don't be an eloquent *****. The apostle
Paul noted that he came with plainness of speech so that he would be
properly understood.
1 Corinthians 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech
or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and
him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power
of God.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector" |
|
| Title: Re: Biochemistry & Evolution |
24 Nov 2003 09:46:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:18:22 -0500, "Raymond E. Griffith"
<tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article r0n4svsaobn7lectdh8uhsetb6a7d9qpld@4ax.com, | | | | |
