| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Aaron Johnson" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2004 02:15:03 PM |
| Object: |
Daily Message for Creationists |
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
....human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
....how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
20 Jan 2004 09:33:39 PM |
|
|
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401201213.414b62a6@posting.google.com...
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my
instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and
female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
When I was young I also heard it asserted that men had one fewer rib (pair
of ribs?) than women, but it should be noted that [a] the Bible does not
claim that male humans, or any humans, inherited any shortage of ribs from
Adam, and [b] creationism does not, by and large, reject "Weismannism," the
theory that aquired morphological traits are not passed on to descendants.
While the random creationist in the pew may pass on all sorts of
half-digested folk tales and garbled pseudoscience as "scientific evidence
for the Bible," your major creationists all know that men and women have (on
average) the same number of ribs, and that there is no known mechanism by
which Adam's loss of a rib could have modified his genes (presumably on his
Y-chromosome), so that his male descendants would share his deficiency.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
http://www.bookluv.com/science/life/samples/skeleton.htm
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we
all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men
(gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then
there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib
only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic
structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of
mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic
diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say
it? -
evolution).
The point about the total number of alleles Adam and Eve could have,
compared to the number found among their descendants, is a good one. Some
creationists have argued, vaguely, that Adam and Eve were more genetically
rich than their descendants (apparently, they somehow managed to have more
than two alleles at each locus). Others concede that the new alleles arose
by mutations, but that such mutations inevitably resulted from "loss of
information," and hence could not constitute "real evolution." On this
point, unlike their ready acceptance of Weismannism, creationists have some
problems with mainstream genetics.
I don't think it logically follows, by the way, that Eve must have been a
clone of Adam. If modern scientists were trying to turn ribs into a woman,
their best bet would be to start with pig ribs and feed them to a girl.
Turning dirt into a man would be best accomplished by growing vegetables in
it, and feeding them to a boy (or into farm animals that will be turned into
meat). An omnipotent creator could bypass the need for mechanisms and
conservation of mass, but presumably could accomplish the same goal of
altering the matter from which the man and woman was made, so that the human
made from it had a genome distinct from anything found in the source
material.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
17 Feb 2004 12:31:48 PM |
|
|
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message news:<100rslnfpn612b6@corp.supernews.com>...
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401201213.414b62a6@posting.google.com...
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my
instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and
female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
When I was young I also heard it asserted that men had one fewer rib (pair
of ribs?) than women, but it should be noted that [a] the Bible does not
claim that male humans, or any humans, inherited any shortage of ribs from
Adam, and [b] creationism does not, by and large, reject "Weismannism," the
theory that aquired morphological traits are not passed on to descendants.
While the random creationist in the pew may pass on all sorts of
half-digested folk tales and garbled pseudoscience as "scientific evidence
for the Bible," your major creationists all know that men and women have (on
average) the same number of ribs, and that there is no known mechanism by
which Adam's loss of a rib could have modified his genes (presumably on his
Y-chromosome), so that his male descendants would share his deficiency.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
http://www.bookluv.com/science/life/samples/skeleton.htm
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we
all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men
(gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then
there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib
only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic
structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of
mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic
diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say
it? -
evolution).
The point about the total number of alleles Adam and Eve could have,
compared to the number found among their descendants, is a good one. Some
creationists have argued, vaguely, that Adam and Eve were more genetically
rich than their descendants (apparently, they somehow managed to have more
than two alleles at each locus). Others concede that the new alleles arose
by mutations, but that such mutations inevitably resulted from "loss of
information," and hence could not constitute "real evolution." On this
point, unlike their ready acceptance of Weismannism, creationists have some
problems with mainstream genetics.
I don't think it logically follows, by the way, that Eve must have been a
clone of Adam. If modern scientists were trying to turn ribs into a woman,
their best bet would be to start with pig ribs and feed them to a girl.
Turning dirt into a man would be best accomplished by growing vegetables in
it, and feeding them to a boy (or into farm animals that will be turned into
meat). An omnipotent creator could bypass the need for mechanisms and
conservation of mass, but presumably could accomplish the same goal of
altering the matter from which the man and woman was made, so that the human
made from it had a genome distinct from anything found in the source
material.
But then you'd have to demonstrate the existence of said 'omnipotent creator'.
-Aaron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
21 Jan 2004 06:54:01 PM |
|
|
(Aaron Johnson) wrote in message news:<7c2c4ad7.0401201213.414b62a6@posting.google.com>...
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
Interesting... But if I cut off one of your fingers, does that mean
that your offspring will only have nine fingers ? Kidding kidding.
Man could not have been created with 11 ribs (No evedince of 11
ribbed humans found) and when Eve was created, she had only 10 ribs as
did Adem (because man and woman have the same amount of ribs today)
NUTS..
Why is it again that man must have one less rib then woman
"according to the Bible"? Cloning is a man made thing is it not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Wise" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
21 Jan 2004 09:33:41 AM |
|
|
(Aaron Johnson) wrote in message news:<7c2c4ad7.0401201213.414b62a6@posting.google.com>...
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
Anyone remember Whorlibird? He actually repeated the missing-rib
claim here as if he believed it were really true. In the face of
overwhelming evidence that contradicted his claim, he did finally
state that he could be wrong and that he would check out some of the
evidence that had been presented to him. However, last I heard, he
still hadn't and it didn't appear that he ever would.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
18 Feb 2004 09:11:51 AM |
|
|
(Aaron Johnson) wrote in message news:<7c2c4ad7.0401201213.414b62a6@posting.google.com>...
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
Surely if Adam and Eve's descendants inherited the missing rib, it
would be evidence for Lamarckian evolution?
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
18 Feb 2004 09:41:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:11:51 +0000 (UTC),
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) spake thusly:
Surely if Adam and Eve's descendants inherited the missing rib, it
would be evidence for Lamarckian evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD. - Joshua 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Wise" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
18 Feb 2004 02:10:06 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<dt17309f23ed0d8ijrk3osdeghno40h9bv@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:11:51 +0000 (UTC),
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) spake thusly:
Surely if Adam and Eve's descendants inherited the missing rib, it
would be evidence for Lamarckian evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
Meaning what, that you're now trying to defend Lamarckian evolution?
Besides which your reference is redundant, since I had already given
it to you in response to your assertion that creationists don't use
the "missing rib" claim, wherein you mention having heard something
about ribs growing back.
If you had bothered to read that response, you would have not only
been reminded of Whorli's determined defense of that claim, but also
you would not have had to track down that AiG article on your own.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD. - Joshua 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
19 Feb 2004 02:17:55 AM |
|
|
(David Wise) wrote in message news:<ad30b67a.0402181212.2a91326d@posting.google.com>...
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<dt17309f23ed0d8ijrk3osdeghno40h9bv@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:11:51 +0000 (UTC),
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) spake thusly:
Surely if Adam and Eve's descendants inherited the missing rib, it
would be evidence for Lamarckian evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
Meaning what, that you're now trying to defend Lamarckian evolution?
Besides which your reference is redundant, since I had already given
it to you in response to your assertion that creationists don't use
the "missing rib" claim, wherein you mention having heard something
about ribs growing back.
If you had bothered to read that response, you would have not only
been reminded of Whorli's determined defense of that claim, but also
you would not have had to track down that AiG article on your own.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD. - Joshua 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
It was a throw-away, light-hearted response to a scan through some
creationist garbage and not intended as a serious scientific argument!
I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve the Sauropodman" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
19 Feb 2004 11:54:02 AM |
|
|
(David Wise) wrote in message news:<ad30b67a.0402181212.2a91326d@posting.google.com>...
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<dt17309f23ed0d8ijrk3osdeghno40h9bv@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:11:51 +0000 (UTC),
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) spake thusly:
Surely if Adam and Eve's descendants inherited the missing rib, it
would be evidence for Lamarckian evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
Meaning what, that you're now trying to defend Lamarckian evolution?
Besides which your reference is redundant, since I had already given
it to you in response to your assertion that creationists don't use
the "missing rib" claim, wherein you mention having heard something
about ribs growing back.
If you had bothered to read that response, you would have not only
been reminded of Whorli's determined defense of that claim, but also
you would not have had to track down that AiG article on your own.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD. - Joshua 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Ooooo..touchy, aren't we.
"Remember: It makes God very angry when you agrue with an evolutionist."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
21 Jan 2004 09:31:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:15:03 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
Actually, Creationists don't argue that men have one
less rib. Also, I read somewhere (I can't remember
where), that the rib is the one bone that can regrow,
if the material at the base of the rib (periosteum) is
left intact and undamaged.
--
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
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but
could through...
Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an..
Unknown atmospheric composition...in an...
Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...
Unknown time and place.
Dr. Henry Morris
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Wise" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
21 Jan 2004 08:04:52 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<je6t00tht85feje66hsa4l2v9e2528viug@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:15:03 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
Actually, Creationists don't argue that men have one
less rib.
Actually, some do, though it's very rare. It is not a standard
"creation science" claim, but apparently is made by individual
creationists who had grown up with that mistaken belief, had never
given it enough thought to check it out, and so make that claim out of
sheer ignorance. It is received somewhat like another perennial
ignorant claim ("then why are there still monkeys?") with attempts to
enlighten the poor benighted soul.
For an example, do a newsgroup Google on Whorli and rib:
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=7gneov8ddmegkej8vcu7spd1la8h199psr%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dwhorli%2Brib%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D7gneov8ddmegkej8vcu7spd1la8h199psr%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
(I hope that URL made it and works)
From: Steffen Whorli (whorlibird@nospam.net)
Subject: Re: Attn Steffan Whorli
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 2003-10-09 18:48:16 PST
"Men have one less rib than women, exactly as the Bible predicts."
Several people pointed him to several Christian sites, including
Answers in Genesis, and quoted from those sites to show that he was
wrong. He held tight to his belief, but finally did concede that he
could be wrong and said he would check it out. No word whether he
ever did or not and I seem to recall him backsliding into holding that
"missing rib" position again, though I don't remember exactly.
In "Regenerating ribs: Adam and that 'missing' rib" at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp , Carl Wieland writes:
"Surprisingly, some Christians have grown up believing that men have
one less rib than women. They have the same number, of course. Some
anti-creationists have used the fact that men don't have any missing
ribs today to mock a literal Genesis."
I disagree with Wieland's last sentence, though, because I've always
seen the "missing rib" belief used as an example of people blindly
accepting what an authority tells them instead of going out and
verifying it themselves. In fact, using the "missing rib" belief as
such an example should be so prevalent that I am surprised that not
everyone has heard it and I would have thought that upon hearing it,
someone who actually believed in the "missing rib" would have been
moved to question that belief enough to check it out.
Also, I read somewhere (I can't remember
where), that the rib is the one bone that can regrow,
if the material at the base of the rib (periosteum) is
left intact and undamaged.
I had also heard that. I think that Wieland's article also mentions
it.
--
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
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but
could through...
Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an..
Unknown atmospheric composition...in an...
Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...
Unknown time and place.
Dr. Henry Morris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
23 Jan 2004 12:00:23 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<je6t00tht85feje66hsa4l2v9e2528viug@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:15:03 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
Actually, Creationists don't argue that men have one
less rib. Also, I read somewhere (I can't remember
where), that the rib is the one bone that can regrow,
if the material at the base of the rib (periosteum) is
left intact and undamaged.
--
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
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...
Hmmm, this sounds familiar... let me see... Unknown processes which no
longer exist... [noises of someone rummaging through sheets of
paper]... Unknown processes which.... ahhh, here it is!
Well, well well! Sorry, but it appears that another "theory" of
origins already lays claim to this particular description of itself;-
"We do not know how the creator created, what processes He used, for
He used processes which are not now operating in the natural universe.
This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot
discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative
processes used by the creator. (Duane Gish, Creation Life Publishers,
1979, p. 40.)
So it seems that the phrase "Unknown processes which no longer exist"
applies more correctly to the Fundamentalist Christian hypothesis of
Special Creation rather than evolution.
Any reasonably-educated person today is aware that the processes which
cause simple molecules to react spontaneously under the application of
energy to produce more and more complex molecules are very well-known.
I would suggest you research the work of Dr. Sidney W. Fox if you
think that processes which result in the spontaneous generation of
complex, cell-like structures from simple chemical precursors are
"unknown" or "no longer exist".
See http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to
what we know of it."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
23 Jan 2004 07:48:49 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2004 22:00:23 -0800,
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<je6t00tht85feje66hsa4l2v9e2528viug@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:15:03 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good
authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and
what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women,
because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist
informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor
in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say
hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually
tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way
toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as
women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the
latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs
than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a
whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An
appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all
can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this
back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that
archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one
tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp)
evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist
"micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
Actually, Creationists don't argue that men have one
less rib. Also, I read somewhere (I can't remember
where), that the rib is the one bone that can regrow,
if the material at the base of the rib (periosteum) is
left intact and undamaged.
--
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
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...
Hmmm, this sounds familiar... let me see... Unknown processes which no
longer exist... [noises of someone rummaging through sheets of
paper]... Unknown processes which.... ahhh, here it is!
Well, well well! Sorry, but it appears that another "theory" of
origins already lays claim to this particular description of itself;-
"We do not know how the creator created, what processes He used, for
He used processes which are not now operating in the natural universe.
This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot
discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative
processes used by the creator. (Duane Gish, Creation Life Publishers,
1979, p. 40.)
So it seems that the phrase "Unknown processes which no longer exist"
applies more correctly to the Fundamentalist Christian hypothesis of
Special Creation rather than evolution.
Any reasonably-educated person today is aware that the processes which
cause simple molecules to react spontaneously under the application of
energy to produce more and more complex molecules are very well-known.
I would suggest you research the work of Dr. Sidney W. Fox if you
think that processes which result in the spontaneous generation of
complex, cell-like structures from simple chemical precursors are
"unknown" or "no longer exist".
See http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
1) The statement you quote by Gish, was made in 1979.
2) It's called, "honesty". Something evolutionists in
these newsgroups seem incapable of, as you have
demonstrated here. While a Creationist can and will
say, "We don't know" about something and proceed to
investigate, the evolutionist insists that they do
know, even when cornered and it is obvious to all that
they don't know.
3) The man did not "spontaneously generate" life. What
he did, was to watch amino acids organize, which does
not imply life. Life is a long way away from watching
some amino acids organize. They must organize in a
very specific way. And that's only step 1 on a
journey.
Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
discredited idea that living organisms can arise
spontaneously from inanimate matter. This theory was
supported by such observations as maggots appearing on
rotten meat left outdoors, which led to the mistaken
conclusion that the meat itself, rather than adult
flies laying eggs in the meat, created the maggots.
- Dictionary of Theories
4) The site says that started with amino acids. That
isn't the same as creating life.
5) The site said, "under the right conditions". And
there lies the problem. The conditions of the supposed
"early Earth" could not have supported this event. You
cannot get life to form with, nor without oxygen
present in the atmosphere. That's why Miller, who
rigged his experiment with a trap, used conditions that
he thought would be favorable to his experiment. Any
educate person knows that there has always been oxygen
present here and even NASA will tell you that the
supposed "early Earth" was not as Miller tried to
suggest.
6) You fail to understand that in a lab experiment,
intelligence is involved. The very thing that many
evolutionists deny was involved. All you've shown, is
that to get anything to happen, intelligent design is
necessary, unless you wish to argue that the experiment
set itself up and chose its own atmosphere.
7) If you're going to try to claim a dead theory as
accurate, then at least make sue you're arguing with
someone who doesn't know any better.
--
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
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory.
Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
belief in special creation. Both are concepts
which believers know to be true, but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof.
- L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
23 Jan 2004 11:28:59 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in
news:tj82101dq6bam5ihk6vjkf3gnt1a4nduh1@4ax.com:
On 22 Jan 2004 22:00:23 -0800,
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:<je6t00tht85feje66hsa4l2v9e2528viug@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:15:03 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on
good authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the
Bible, and what could be more authoritative?), that men have one
less rib than women, because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold
into Eve. My creationist informant has generally become confused
upon being asked if that means one less pair of ribs, or just one
rib missing from one side. Then my instructor in human origins
becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say hostile, when
asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female
human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever
actually tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could
go a long way toward proving a testable prediction of creationism.
(For members of the Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the
same number of ribs as women.)
NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that
the latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have
fewer ribs than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists
have unearthed a whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the
males being short a rib. An appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to
the rest of the world, so that we all can be brought into the Light
of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this back in '98, and not a
single creationist has written me about that archaeological
Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one tangible
piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)
LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed
men (gasp) evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of
cretinist "micro-evolution"?
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic
diversity, and ...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve
were made out of Adam's rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of
Adam. Since these two were the parents of all mankind, and they
had the same genetic structure, then there is absolutely no way to
account for the wide range of genetic diversity present in the
human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic
structure, with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to
form all of mankind [only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a
very limited genetic diversity (unless of course you allow
mutations to play a role to diversify our genetic structure - but
then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? - evolution).
Actually, Creationists don't argue that men have one
less rib. Also, I read somewhere (I can't remember
where), that the rib is the one bone that can regrow,
if the material at the base of the rib (periosteum) is
left intact and undamaged.
--
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
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...
Hmmm, this sounds familiar... let me see... Unknown processes which no
longer exist... [noises of someone rummaging through sheets of
paper]... Unknown processes which.... ahhh, here it is!
Well, well well! Sorry, but it appears that another "theory" of
origins already lays claim to this particular description of itself;-
"We do not know how the creator created, what processes He used, for
He used processes which are not now operating in the natural universe.
This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot
discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative
processes used by the creator. (Duane Gish, Creation Life Publishers,
1979, p. 40.)
So it seems that the phrase "Unknown processes which no longer exist"
applies more correctly to the Fundamentalist Christian hypothesis of
Special Creation rather than evolution.
Any reasonably-educated person today is aware that the processes which
cause simple molecules to react spontaneously under the application of
energy to produce more and more complex molecules are very well-known.
I would suggest you research the work of Dr. Sidney W. Fox if you
think that processes which result in the spontaneous generation of
complex, cell-like structures from simple chemical precursors are
"unknown" or "no longer exist".
See http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
1) The statement you quote by Gish, was made in 1979.
So? Has creation science now decided that it's wrong?
2) It's called, "honesty". Something evolutionists in
these newsgroups seem incapable of, as you have
demonstrated here. While a Creationist can and will
say, "We don't know" about something and proceed to
investigate, the evolutionist insists that they do
know, even when cornered and it is obvious to all that
they don't know.
This is a lie twisted into a tu quoque fallacy.
3) The man did not "spontaneously generate" life. What
he did, was to watch amino acids organize, which does
not imply life. Life is a long way away from watching
some amino acids organize. They must organize in a
very specific way. And that's only step 1 on a
journey.
He didn't claim to spontaneously generate life. He claimed to observe
and test one of the things necessary for that to happen.
Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
discredited idea that living organisms can arise
spontaneously from inanimate matter. This theory was
This is also a lie. You are back to attempting to equivocate Pasteur's
finding about maggot eggs with a disproof of prebiotic chemical
evolution.
supported by such observations as maggots appearing on
rotten meat left outdoors, which led to the mistaken
conclusion that the meat itself, rather than adult
flies laying eggs in the meat, created the maggots.
- Dictionary of Theories
Furthermore, you've been shown that it's an equivocation but you still
persist in trying to deceive people with it.
4) The site says that started with amino acids. That
isn't the same as creating life.
True...it's just one step. Creating amino acids is another, different
step.
5) The site said, "under the right conditions". And
there lies the problem. The conditions of the supposed
"early Earth" could not have supported this event. You
This is simply incorrect. The early earth had a wide variety of
conditions, not all of which have been investigated.
cannot get life to form with, nor without oxygen
present in the atmosphere. That's why Miller, who
rigged his experiment with a trap, used conditions that
he thought would be favorable to his experiment. Any
educate person knows that there has always been oxygen
present here and even NASA will tell you that the
supposed "early Earth" was not as Miller tried to
suggest.
Whoa, another creationist attempt to equivocate. We do NOT know that
there has always been FREE oxygen present. There is oxygen present in a
room full of carbon dioxide. But you will die in that room. There is
oxygen present in a room full of carbon monoxide and that room will kill
you even more quickly. But there is no FREE oxygen in those rooms and
one of them has a highly reducing atmosphere.
6) You fail to understand that in a lab experiment,
intelligence is involved. The very thing that many
evolutionists deny was involved. All you've shown, is
that to get anything to happen, intelligent design is
necessary, unless you wish to argue that the experiment
set itself up and chose its own atmosphere.
In other words, no experiment can demonstrate anything in nature because
all experiments involve planning. Sorry, I do not buy this piece of
nonsense. The planning is necessary to make the experiment tell us what
we want to know (which is not necessarily the same thing as making a
living organism from scratch, though it may end up telling us how to do
that).
7) If you're going to try to claim a dead theory as
accurate, then at least make sue you're arguing with
someone who doesn't know any better.
If you're going to lie about science, then at least make sure you're
lying to someone who doesn't know anything about it.
I want to see the lies you're going to try on the day of judgement.
You've gotten the habit of lying, so I doubt you'll be any different on
that day from any of the thousands of days before it.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
17 Feb 2004 12:47:02 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<tj82101dq6bam5ihk6vjkf3gnt1a4nduh1@4ax.com>...
6) You fail to understand that in a lab experiment,
intelligence is involved. The very thing that many
evolutionists deny was involved. All you've shown, is
that to get anything to happen, intelligent design is
necessary, unless you wish to argue that the experiment
set itself up and chose its own atmosphere.
The absence of hard evidence (i.e. a lab experiment where life is
created from non-life) does not default to the intelligent design
idea. This is a logical fallacy. We could just as easiy default to
"the little blue gnomes had to have designed life". The point is, you
have no evidence for the existence of your God than you do of the
existence of little blue gnomes!
Besides, there is strong evidence for evolution all around us: oceanic
fossils on high mountaintops, artificial selection, DNA for humans and
chimpanzees share 98% of chromasones, etc. These fact are in 100%
agreement with Darwiin's original insights. And viruses, which fit any
description of abiogenesis, and are not mentioned in the Bible.
Your evidence: a 5000+ year old mythology, from a culture which
thought the world was flat and that Pi equalled 3. Besides, your myth
can't even agree with itself: read carefully Genesis 1 and then
Genesis 2.
I suggest you read 'On the Origin of Species' and brush up on what you
'enemy' actually says.
7) If you're going to try to claim a dead theory as
accurate, then at least make sue you're arguing with
someone who doesn't know any better.
Name calling doesn't win arguments. Also a fallacy. For evolutionary
theory to be 'dead', there would have to be no successful use of it,
which is, ah, not the case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Message for Creationists |
21 Jan 2004 09:33:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:15:03 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Ron Buckallew, a biologist is... well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and
...how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's
rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the
parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity
present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only
played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure,
with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind
[only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity
(unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our
genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).
Actually, that would be plenty of time.
--
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
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
