| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2003 11:08:41 AM |
| Object: |
Definition of Evolution |
Definition of Evolution
"Evolution" as defined by the dictionary is-a gradual change into
something more complex(L. evolere-to roll out, unfold). The term is
actually used today as particles(non-living) turned into people over long
time, without any need for an intelligent Designer. The evolutionists
Kerkut accurately defined this "general theory of evolution" as "the
theory that all the living forms in the kworld have arisen from a single
source which itself came from an inorgainic form. And then he said, "The
evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to
consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis(an assumption
subject to varification or proof)" *
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if equivocation,
that is , swithching the meaning of a single word(evolution) part way
through an argument. This "bait and switch" is simply to produce examples
of change over time and call it "evolution". This method of deception has
been used over and over again here on these NG. Those who know God need
to e aware of this "bait and switch" technique used and be able to see
through it as they would a smoke screen.
The basic winning argument for the Christian is that information is never
increased in speciation and therefore particles to people cannot and has
not ever taken place.
* G.A. Kerkut, "Implications of Evolution" p. 157
.
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
08 Oct 2003 06:57:21 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou)
"Evolution" as defined by the dictionary is-a gradual change into
something more complex(L. evolere-to roll out, unfold).
No, evolution as defined by the dictionary is a gradual change or
development. Unless applied in the sense of biological evolution (and
sometimes not even then) it does not require that complexity increases.
In any case, we have seen a number of debates on this group solely on
the issue of what constitutes biological complexity - and of course, as
always, while the science advocates have offered many views and
interpretations, the Creationists have been able to rely only on "no
it's not, no it's not, no it's not".
The term is
actually used today as particles(non-living) turned into people over
long time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
In the longest term, that is generally correct, yes. Of course,
evolutionary theory does not in itself address the possibility that the
starting point, or the rules the system follows, might have been
determined by an intelligence. The only reference we can make in this
regard is that there is nothing about evolution which suggests that
there MUST be intelligent determination behind it.
And then he said, "The evidence which supports this is not
sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a
working hypothesis(an assumption subject to varification or proof)" *
I believe evolution is generally treated as a theory - meaning that if
something better comes along which better fits the observed facts, then
there is nothing to say we must stick with evolution. However, so far
nothing has - and CERTAINLY Creationists have not been able to offer
anything approaching a decent alternative.
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if
equivocation, that is , swithching the meaning of a single
word(evolution) part way through an argument.
And the Creationists use the deceitful practice of treating and
discussing evolutionary theory as though it is in itself a religion.
This is partially down to their deluded belief that Creationism is
itself a science. Obviously, it is not - Creationism has not and never
will offer any basis for any improvement in our scientific understanding
of the world. Creationists leap on changes in scientific theories as
evidence that they are 'wrong' (and that clearly therefore the entire
structure and philosophy of the scientific world is similarly 'wrong').
What they do not realise is that it is that very difference that makes
science valuable, and Creationism worthless. Science can adapt.
Science can learn. The best Creationism can do is compromise - that is
as flexible as it gets (days into millennia, for example), and it does
it only when absolutely necessary - when the alternative is that
Creationist ideas would collapse utterly.
Those who know God need to e aware of this
"bait and switch" technique used and be able to see through it as they
would a smoke screen.
Those who know GOD know that knowing It does not depend on accepting
some outmoded, crackpot fantasy slung together thousands of years ago
before anyone knew jack about the way the universe worked. Those who
know GOD know that Its hand is visible in the Earth and its creatures
regardless of the method It used to get them here. Those who know GOD
know that it is not up to humanity to decide how It did things, or how
It must continue. It is for God to show us, and for us to learn from
It. But Creationists, by and large, do NOT know God - or if they do, It
is of secondary importance to the BOOK. To these people it is the BOOK
that must be worshipped, not the god.
The basic winning argument for the Christian is that information is
never increased in speciation and therefore particles to people cannot
and has not ever taken place.
The basic winning argument for the Christian is not relevant here,
because the existence or otherwise of Christ does not depend on any
given theory of the origins of life. And for the Creationist there is
no basic winning theory. As we have seen time and time and time again
on these groups, there is nothing that the Creationist can offer which
can have any bearing on the realities of scientific research.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
13 Oct 2003 08:52:54 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns940F9CD086FEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50>, Midwinter
<solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou)
"Evolution" as defined by the dictionary is-a gradual change into
something more complex(L. evolere-to roll out, unfold).
No, evolution as defined by the dictionary is a gradual change or
development. Unless applied in the sense of biological evolution (and
sometimes not even then) it does not require that complexity increases.
In any case, we have seen a number of debates on this group solely on
the issue of what constitutes biological complexity - and of course, as
always, while the science advocates have offered many views and
interpretations, the Creationists have been able to rely only on "no
it's not, no it's not, no it's not".
Tee hee hee, of course, lacking evidence of slow gradual change in the
fossil record, fundie evolutionists have invented Punctuated Equilibrium,
which attempts to shore up the failing faith in evolution by saying,
consistent with the fossil record, that evolution is not really slow
gradual change.
The term is
actually used today as particles(non-living) turned into people over
long time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
In the longest term, that is generally correct, yes. Of course,
evolutionary theory does not in itself address the possibility that the
starting point, or the rules the system follows, might have been
determined by an intelligence. The only reference we can make in this
regard is that there is nothing about evolution which suggests that
there MUST be intelligent determination behind it.
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not occurred.
And then he said, "The evidence which supports this is not
sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a
working hypothesis(an assumption subject to varification or proof)" *
I believe evolution is generally treated as a theory - meaning that if
something better comes along which better fits the observed facts, then
there is nothing to say we must stick with evolution. However, so far
nothing has - and CERTAINLY Creationists have not been able to offer
anything approaching a decent alternative.
Tee hee hee, so a fundie evolutionists would say.
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if
equivocation, that is , swithching the meaning of a single
word(evolution) part way through an argument.
And the Creationists use the deceitful practice of treating and
discussing evolutionary theory as though it is in itself a religion.
Tee hee hee, sounds like fundie religious evolutionism.
This is partially down to their deluded belief that Creationism is
itself a science. Obviously, it is not - Creationism has not and never
will offer any basis for any improvement in our scientific understanding
of the world.
Tee hee hee, why?
Creationists leap on changes in scientific theories as
evidence that they are 'wrong' (and that clearly therefore the entire
structure and philosophy of the scientific world is similarly 'wrong').
What they do not realise is that it is that very difference that makes
science valuable, and Creationism worthless. Science can adapt.
Science can learn. The best Creationism can do is compromise - that is
as flexible as it gets (days into millennia, for example), and it does
it only when absolutely necessary - when the alternative is that
Creationist ideas would collapse utterly.
Sounds like you are confusing the revelation of creation with the
scientific theory of creation.
Those who know God need to e aware of this
"bait and switch" technique used and be able to see through it as they
would a smoke screen.
Those who know GOD know that knowing It does not depend on accepting
some outmoded, crackpot fantasy slung together thousands of years ago
before anyone knew jack about the way the universe worked. Those who
know GOD know that Its hand is visible in the Earth and its creatures
regardless of the method It used to get them here. Those who know GOD
know that it is not up to humanity to decide how It did things, or how
It must continue. It is for God to show us, and for us to learn from
It. But Creationists, by and large, do NOT know God - or if they do, It
is of secondary importance to the BOOK. To these people it is the BOOK
that must be worshipped, not the god.
Tee hee hee, sounds like a metaphysical mythology of religious evolutionism.
The basic winning argument for the Christian is that information is
never increased in speciation and therefore particles to people cannot
and has not ever taken place.
The basic winning argument for the Christian is not relevant here,
because the existence or otherwise of Christ does not depend on any
given theory of the origins of life.
Tee hee hee, you mean that the absense of a Creator affirms Christ's
affirmation of Genesis?
And for the Creationist there is
no basic winning theory. As we have seen time and time and time again
on these groups, there is nothing that the Creationist can offer which
can have any bearing on the realities of scientific research.
And for the evolutionists there is
no basic winning theory. As we have seen time and time and time again
on these groups, there is nothing that the evolutionists can offer which
can have any bearing on the realities of scientific research that tomatoe
plants and giraffes have a common ancestor rather than a common Creator.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
13 Oct 2003 10:34:27 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
In article <Xns940F9CD086FEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50>, Midwinter
<solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou)
"Evolution" as defined by the dictionary is-a gradual change into
something more complex(L. evolere-to roll out, unfold).
No, evolution as defined by the dictionary is a gradual change or
development. Unless applied in the sense of biological evolution (and
sometimes not even then) it does not require that complexity increases.
In any case, we have seen a number of debates on this group solely on
the issue of what constitutes biological complexity - and of course, as
always, while the science advocates have offered many views and
interpretations, the Creationists have been able to rely only on "no
it's not, no it's not, no it's not".
Tee hee hee, of course, lacking evidence of slow gradual change in the
fossil record, fundie evolutionists have invented Punctuated Equilibrium,
which attempts to shore up the failing faith in evolution by saying,
consistent with the fossil record, that evolution is not really slow
gradual change.
This is incorrect (which has been pointed out to you before). There are many
transitional forms in the fossil record.
The term is
actually used today as particles(non-living) turned into people over
long time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
In the longest term, that is generally correct, yes. Of course,
evolutionary theory does not in itself address the possibility that the
starting point, or the rules the system follows, might have been
determined by an intelligence. The only reference we can make in this
regard is that there is nothing about evolution which suggests that
there MUST be intelligent determination behind it.
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
14 Oct 2003 08:45:24 AM |
|
|
In article <tCzib.1330$8j4.220032138@twister1.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
In article <Xns940F9CD086FEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50>, Midwinter
<solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou)
"Evolution" as defined by the dictionary is-a gradual change into
something more complex(L. evolere-to roll out, unfold).
No, evolution as defined by the dictionary is a gradual change or
development. Unless applied in the sense of biological evolution (and
sometimes not even then) it does not require that complexity increases.
In any case, we have seen a number of debates on this group solely on
the issue of what constitutes biological complexity - and of course, as
always, while the science advocates have offered many views and
interpretations, the Creationists have been able to rely only on "no
it's not, no it's not, no it's not".
Tee hee hee, of course, lacking evidence of slow gradual change in the
fossil record, fundie evolutionists have invented Punctuated Equilibrium,
which attempts to shore up the failing faith in evolution by saying,
consistent with the fossil record, that evolution is not really slow
gradual change.
This is incorrect (which has been pointed out to you before). There are many
transitional forms in the fossil record.
Tee hee hee, if there were, Punctuated Equilibrium would never have been
postulated to replace Darwinism. Read Stevie Gould's own words and weep.
The term is
actually used today as particles(non-living) turned into people over
long time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
In the longest term, that is generally correct, yes. Of course,
evolutionary theory does not in itself address the possibility that the
starting point, or the rules the system follows, might have been
determined by an intelligence. The only reference we can make in this
regard is that there is nothing about evolution which suggests that
there MUST be intelligent determination behind it.
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Are you making a metaphysical assumption that the Creator can not use
viral inserts in the code?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
14 Oct 2003 08:56:34 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1410030945250001@192.168.1.55...
In article <tCzib.1330$8j4.220032138@twister1.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
<snip>
This is incorrect (which has been pointed out to you before). There are
many
transitional forms in the fossil record.
Tee hee hee, if there were, Punctuated Equilibrium would never have been
postulated to replace Darwinism. Read Stevie Gould's own words and weep.
Gould: "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains
the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms
are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the
gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of
evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and
transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But
paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary
forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic
about the reality of life's physical geneology."
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Are you making a metaphysical assumption that the Creator can not use
viral inserts in the code?
No. So, Michael, what are YOUR metaphysical assumptions?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
13 Oct 2003 05:55:07 PM |
|
|
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software? Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
-- Alan Wostenberg
Rosary? http://www.thelightofheaven.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
13 Oct 2003 06:59:25 PM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com...
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software? Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Your example below shows but a single node, but there are actually millions
of nodes, including biochemical. And every time two lines diverge, they
never share innovations. That means once Ford and GM became separate
entities, they could never learn from each other. If Ford invented disk
brakes, it would mean nothing to GM, who wouldn't even know it had happened.
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
What does this list mean? Are you implying that the designer started with a
Mammal and adapted it in a succession of changes?
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
In this case, the team working on aMan would never know what the aChimp team
was up to. If either team made a startling discovery, it would be unnoticed
by other team. Your analogy clearly shows that you don't understand the very
specific and limiting nature of the nested hierarchy. No human designer is
so limited. Why would you so limit God?
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
If you posit a God that is so limited that he must conform to the nested
hierarchy, then that is correct. But no human designer is so constrained.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
14 Oct 2003 02:01:27 PM |
|
|
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message news:<3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com>...
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software? Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
Alan, the problem with you analogy (smalltalk :: biological inheritance)
is that they operate in fundamentally different ways. In smalltalk, when
in instantiate an object, it inherits from its class and the ancestors of
its class. In biology a new object inherits from its parents. Smalltalk
is more like Darwin's initial view that the pattern passed on is read
at conception. We now know that the pattern is passed from parents to
child and not maintained in an external vault (the Class hierarchy).
Since the class is internal to the instance, similar details in different
instances point to a common ancestor instance.
Does that make sense?
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
He could. The problem is that he didn't.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
26 Oct 2003 12:33:48 PM |
|
|
Alan Wostenberg writes:
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
Now, I don't think the powers of God are bounded by what mere mortals can
do. (More likely they're bounded by what mere mortals can fantasize about
them.) So, ITYM something like, If God can create hierarchies of form
without common ancestors, then why not God? (Since you can have God can do
whatever you want, then you might as well get to the point and drive home
the circularity without all the fancy footwork.)
--
"He affirmed that only in man we had the beatings of the heart, that the
left side of the body was colder than the right, that men have more teeth
than women." -- John Tyndall
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
17 Oct 2003 08:25:34 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Alan
Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
You don't do that in software. I have seen plenty of object
oriented code and it does not show a nested hierarchy.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
What you did here was take three end points from the tree and
show they are not nested. Let us take some more interesting
examples. How would you do it such that you instantiate those big
ocean going things as mammals and not fish? Why are penguins and
seals and shark so similar form an external engineering
standpoint (ocean going hunters) and so different internally.
Explain this bit of design to me.
And why did you get rid of the vitamin C code for all of those
primates?
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
You did not create a hierarchy without ancestors, you showed an
ahistorical cut from a process. Let us examine how this might
actually be done in the real world. You don't just create that
"Primate" class without instantiating it to check it out. Same
for "mammal" and so on. The actual history would show the
intermediaries. That is, if we looked at various times in the
past we would find ancestors. We would find your first and second
and third attempts at the Primate class. And then we would find
various attempts at HomoSapiens and Chimp and such. If we looked
we would likely find something that appears in human designed
items, but not in biology: cross-fertilization. That is,
sometimes we might find that you wrote some code for an attempt
at HomoSapiens and then put that code into Primate. And sometimes
we might find features, not just code, you made for HomoSapiens
showing up in the other classes. IOW your description of coding
does not reflect how it actually operates and does not conflict
in a real way with biology.
BTW, if you were designing life by yourself would you make whales
and not give them gills? Would you have embryo baleen whales
start to express teeth and have them get re-absorbed? Would you
make bats, but make them so like mammals and not like birds?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
13 Oct 2003 06:34:45 PM |
|
|
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above the beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
-- Alan Wostenberg
Rosary? http://www.thelightofheaven.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
18 Oct 2003 05:29:09 AM |
|
|
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above the beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Bob Hong kong
........"There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
-- Alan Wostenberg
Rosary? http://www.thelightofheaven.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
23 Oct 2003 08:09:08 AM |
|
|
In article <3F91152C.41ECF70D@netvigator.com>, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above the beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Tee hee hee, of course may be but only based upon a metaphysical
assumption regarding how the Creator should or should not have created,
which is not scientific, but religious.
Bob Hong kong
......."There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
Tee hee hee, I would agree, that is why Christianity is the reality, and
not a religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
23 Oct 2003 08:20:37 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2310030909090001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <3F91152C.41ECF70D@netvigator.com>, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above the beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Tee hee hee, of course may be but only based upon a metaphysical
assumption regarding how the Creator should or should not have created,
which is not scientific, but religious.
I think you just admitted that you admit that you have no idea what is
going on each time you write your silly little giggles.
Bob Hong kong
......."There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
Tee hee hee, I would agree, that is why Christianity is the reality, and
not a religion.
Feel free to show how Christianity is not a religion. Remember, you
won't use any metaphysical assumptions when you do this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
27 Oct 2003 04:43:52 PM |
|
|
In article <r8lfpvkoojia0ggcnqhlfa9h3p7hcaiurt@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2310030909090001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <3F91152C.41ECF70D@netvigator.com>, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by
vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above the
beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his
separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Tee hee hee, of course may be but only based upon a metaphysical
assumption regarding how the Creator should or should not have created,
which is not scientific, but religious.
I think you just admitted that you admit that you have no idea what is
going on each time you write your silly little giggles.
Tee hee hee, so you say. Can't help the giggles when one is posting in
response to such wonderful humour.
Bob Hong kong
......."There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
Tee hee hee, I would agree, that is why Christianity is the reality, and
not a religion.
Feel free to show how Christianity is not a religion. Remember, you
won't use any metaphysical assumptions when you do this.
Tee hee hee, why not? Religion is a reliance in a tightly held set of
beliefs such as evolution, atheism, etc. When one knows the Father, there
is no reason to hold onto religious beliefs, just the reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
27 Oct 2003 06:56:02 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2710031743500001@192.168.1.55...
In article <r8lfpvkoojia0ggcnqhlfa9h3p7hcaiurt@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2310030909090001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <3F91152C.41ECF70D@netvigator.com>, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design
has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral
inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a
nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without
common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our DNA
is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient way
for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by
vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common
ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above
all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as
distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above the
beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his
separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested
hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it
would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Tee hee hee, of course may be but only based upon a metaphysical
assumption regarding how the Creator should or should not have created,
which is not scientific, but religious.
I think you just admitted that you admit that you have no idea what is
going on each time you write your silly little giggles.
Tee hee hee, so you say. Can't help the giggles when one is posting in
response to such wonderful humour.
Bob Hong kong
......."There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
Tee hee hee, I would agree, that is why Christianity is the reality,
and
not a religion.
Feel free to show how Christianity is not a religion. Remember, you
won't use any metaphysical assumptions when you do this.
Burt: Tee hee hee, why not? Religion is a reliance in a tightly held set
of
beliefs such as evolution, atheism, etc. When one knows the Father, there
is no reason to hold onto religious beliefs, just the reality.
Tom: Ha Ha Ha, sorry tee hee hee's won't cut it here. Learn what a religion
is Burt, you already make an ***** of yourself, don't broadcast the fact.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
27 Oct 2003 10:48:18 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2710031743500001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <r8lfpvkoojia0ggcnqhlfa9h3p7hcaiurt@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2310030909090001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <3F91152C.41ECF70D@netvigator.com>, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by
vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above the
beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his
separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Tee hee hee, of course may be but only based upon a metaphysical
assumption regarding how the Creator should or should not have created,
which is not scientific, but religious.
I think you just admitted that you admit that you have no idea what is
going on each time you write your silly little giggles.
Tee hee hee, so you say. Can't help the giggles when one is posting in
response to such wonderful humour.
Bob Hong kong
......."There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
Tee hee hee, I would agree, that is why Christianity is the reality, and
not a religion.
Feel free to show how Christianity is not a religion. Remember, you
won't use any metaphysical assumptions when you do this.
Tee hee hee, why not? Religion is a reliance in a tightly held set of
beliefs such as evolution, atheism, etc. When one knows the Father, there
is no reason to hold onto religious beliefs, just the reality.
Your lies are getting boring. Would you like to talk about science or
just repeat your dishonest rants?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
28 Oct 2003 03:49:22 PM |
|
|
In article <87trpv0dqqpj0te6cn59kcq3tpdm9spk9j@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2710031743500001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <r8lfpvkoojia0ggcnqhlfa9h3p7hcaiurt@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2310030909090001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <3F91152C.41ECF70D@netvigator.com>, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design
has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a
nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo
without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient
way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code (by
vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common
ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above
all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as
distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above the
beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his
separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested
hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Tee hee hee, of course may be but only based upon a metaphysical
assumption regarding how the Creator should or should not have created,
which is not scientific, but religious.
I think you just admitted that you admit that you have no idea what is
going on each time you write your silly little giggles.
Tee hee hee, so you say. Can't help the giggles when one is posting in
response to such wonderful humour.
Bob Hong kong
......."There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
Tee hee hee, I would agree, that is why Christianity is the reality, and
not a religion.
Feel free to show how Christianity is not a religion. Remember, you
won't use any metaphysical assumptions when you do this.
Tee hee hee, why not? Religion is a reliance in a tightly held set of
beliefs such as evolution, atheism, etc. When one knows the Father, there
is no reason to hold onto religious beliefs, just the reality.
Your lies are getting boring. Would you like to talk about science or
just repeat your dishonest rants?
Have to repeat because of the repeating of dishonest rants by fundie
evoluiotists who are first generation upright walking humans who claim
that they are talking about science asserting that tomatoe plants and
giraffes have a common ancestor, where there is no evidence that there is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
28 Oct 2003 04:06:40 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2810031649210001@192.168.1.55...
In article <87trpv0dqqpj0te6cn59kcq3tpdm9spk9j@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2710031743500001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <r8lfpvkoojia0ggcnqhlfa9h3p7hcaiurt@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2310030909090001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <3F91152C.41ECF70D@netvigator.com>, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design
has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral
inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a
nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo
without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our
DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient
way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code
(by
vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass
Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common
ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above
all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as
distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above
the
beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his
separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested
hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it
would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Tee hee hee, of course may be but only based upon a metaphysical
assumption regarding how the Creator should or should not have
created,
which is not scientific, but religious.
I think you just admitted that you admit that you have no idea what
is
going on each time you write your silly little giggles.
Tee hee hee, so you say. Can't help the giggles when one is posting in
response to such wonderful humour.
Bob Hong kong
......."There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
Tee hee hee, I would agree, that is why Christianity is the reality,
and
not a religion.
Feel free to show how Christianity is not a religion. Remember, you
won't use any metaphysical assumptions when you do this.
Tee hee hee, why not? Religion is a reliance in a tightly held set of
beliefs such as evolution, atheism, etc. When one knows the Father,
there
is no reason to hold onto religious beliefs, just the reality.
Your lies are getting boring. Would you like to talk about science or
just repeat your dishonest rants?
Burt: Have to repeat because of the repeating of dishonest rants by fundie
evoluiotists who are first generation upright walking humans who claim
that they are talking about science asserting that tomatoe plants and
giraffes have a common ancestor, where there is no evidence that there is.
Tom: Tee hee hee, if you want to judge the intelligence of Burt, this post
should give you a good gauge to use.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
29 Oct 2003 08:11:07 AM |
|
|
In article <vptq3j6vjrl544@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2810031649210001@192.168.1.55...
In article <87trpv0dqqpj0te6cn59kcq3tpdm9spk9j@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2710031743500001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <r8lfpvkoojia0ggcnqhlfa9h3p7hcaiurt@4ax.com>,
david@dajensen-family.com wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, (Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-2310030909090001@192.168.1.55>:
In article <3F91152C.41ECF70D@netvigator.com>, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
in article 3F8B2D44.3070904@psalmweaver.com, Alan Wostenberg at
awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com wrote on 10/13/03 6:55 PM:
Zachriel wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-3112692012360001@192.168.1.55...
Neither is there anything to suggest that intelligent design
has not
occurred.
<snip>
How does creationism explain the nested hierarchy of viral
inserts?
Zach, can you state the problem? Why can't a designer create a
nested
heiarchy of form, then instantiate individuals ex-nihilo
without common
ancestors, like we do in software?
Hmmm. You haven't discussed the very real idea that some of our
DNA is
attributable to viral inserts. This seems like an inefficient
way for a
Creator to design code.
Consider this nested heiarchy in my
Smalltalk computing environment:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Gorilla
HomoSapiens
now I do
aMan := HomoSapiens new.
aChimp := Chimp new.
And behold -- aMan and aChimp will share quite a but of code
(by
vurture
of the abstract superclass Primate and it's superclass
Mammal).
But the share no common ancestor.
If mere mortals can create heiarchies of form without common
ancestors,
why not God?
Except that according to Genesis man is supposed to be far above
all the
animals. In Corinthians we are told that there is man's flesh as
distinct
from the flesh of beasts. The idea was that man was a far above
the
beasts
as the angels are above man.
If God wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of man and his
separateness from
the animals, then He would *NOT* have created with a nested
hierarchy. It
would have been an unnecessary thing for an almighty God, and it
would
provide evidence against a unique creation.
Of course it is.....
Tee hee hee, of course may be but only based upon a metaphysical
assumption regarding how the Creator should or should not have
created,
which is not scientific, but religious.
I think you just admitted that you admit that you have no idea what
is
going on each time you write your silly little giggles.
Tee hee hee, so you say. Can't help the giggles when one is posting in
response to such wonderful humour.
Bob Hong kong
......."There are two things in the world that can never
get together - religion & common sense."
[George W. Foote]
Tee hee hee, I would agree, that is why Christianity is the reality,
and
not a religion.
Feel free to show how Christianity is not a religion. Remember, you
won't use any metaphysical assumptions when you do this.
Tee hee hee, why not? Religion is a reliance in a tightly held set of
beliefs such as evolution, atheism, etc. When one knows the Father,
there
is no reason to hold onto religious beliefs, just the reality.
Your lies are getting boring. Would you like to talk about science or
just repeat your dishonest rants?
Burt: Have to repeat because of the repeating of dishonest rants by fundie
evoluiotists who are first generation upright walking humans who claim
that they are talking about science asserting that tomatoe plants and
giraffes have a common ancestor, where there is no evidence that there is.
Tom: Tee hee hee, if you want to judge the intelligence of Burt, this post
should give you a good gauge to use.
Fundie evolutionists who are first generation upright walking humans do
have a hard time judging intelligence; however.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
07 Oct 2003 01:57:34 PM |
|
|
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if equivocation,
that is , swithching the meaning of a single word(evolution) part way
through an argument.
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: "Terry H. Gilsenan" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
07 Oct 2003 08:32:59 PM |
|
|
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:blv2se$h18c1$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if
equivocation,
that is , swithching the meaning of a single word(evolution) part way
through an argument.
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
<snip drivel>
There you are, when a POV that you agree with is espoused, you claim the
speakers right
to state it with impugnity as "free speech", and appeal to the 1st amendment
etc, but when
someone dares to have a POV counter to your accepted doxology, you waste no
time in
denying then that right that you claim for yourself.
Typical secular humanism
<shrug>
T.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
07 Oct 2003 08:34:21 PM |
|
|
"Terry H. Gilsenan" <thg@fission-chips.com.au> wrote in message
news:blvpan$gjphk$2@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:blv2se$h18c1$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if
equivocation,
that is , swithching the meaning of a single word(evolution) part way
through an argument.
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
<snip drivel>
There you are, when a POV that you agree with is espoused, you claim the
speakers right
to state it with impugnity as "free speech", and appeal to the 1st
amendment
etc, but when
someone dares to have a POV counter to your accepted doxology, you waste
no
time in
denying then that right that you claim for yourself.
From what you left of Thore Schmechtig's post, he indicated no such thing.
Typical secular humanism
<shrug>
T.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
07 Oct 2003 09:42:12 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "Terry H. Gilsenan" <thg@fission-chips.com.au>
wrote in <blvpan$gjphk$2@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:blv2se$h18c1$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if
equivocation,
that is , swithching the meaning of a single word(evolution) part way
through an argument.
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
<snip drivel>
There you are, when a POV that you agree with is espoused, you claim the
speakers right
to state it with impugnity as "free speech", and appeal to the 1st amendment
etc, but when
someone dares to have a POV counter to your accepted doxology, you waste no
time in
denying then that right that you claim for yourself.
Typical secular humanism
<shrug>
Most Christians I know don't want religion taught in public schools in
America. Maybe you don't understand the problem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
07 Oct 2003 04:51:05 PM |
|
|
In article <blv2se$h18c1$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Thore
Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if equivocation,
that is , swithching the meaning of a single word(evolution) part way
through an argument.
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.
Tee hee hee "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and
layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in
its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly
not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who
deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the
criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism
represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from
without."‹*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
--
Michael
People who donąt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
07 Oct 2003 06:16:22 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0710031751080001@192.168.1.147...
In article <blv2se$h18c1$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Thore
Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if
equivocation,
that is , swithching the meaning of a single word(evolution) part way
through an argument.
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.
Tee hee hee "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and
layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in
its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly
not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who
deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the
criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism
represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from
without."‹*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt appears to be quote mining, probably from Stephen
Jones site. Give me a little background on B. Leith and tell me what area of
evolutionary biology was his specialty.
If you want a little background on creationist quote mining you can go here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html. This might give
you a clue as to why none of us really get excited over creationist quotes.
If creationists spent as much time in scientific research as they do in
quote mining they might accomplish a little more, though I doubt it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of Evolution |
07 Oct 2003 07:15:56 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0710031751080001@192.168.1.147...
In article <blv2se$h18c1$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Thore
Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
The evolutionary religionists use the deceitful practice if
equivocation,
that is , swithching the meaning of a single word(evolution) part way
through an argument.
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.
Tee hee hee "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and
layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenth-century rel | | | |
