In article <b9Dfb.846$Wr5.445089864@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:

"Michael" <

Depends upon the defination of 'natural' What defination are you using?

What difference does that make? Are you denying the existence of snowflakes?

No, God's creation of the snowflake is pretty impressive.

The Creator wrote the laws of chemistry, physics, as well as morality, and
He is a lawful God, why would He violate His own laws within His
creation?

No, but He might not always conform to your personal notions of His laws.

That is why I strive to conform to His personal notions of His laws.

It sounds like the defination of natural that you are using has
a metaphysical component.

In what way is wind-blown sand "metaphysical"?

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

In article <b9Dfb.846$Wr5.445089864@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:

"Michael" <

In article <qrifb.66645$eS5.56365@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote:

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-0310030842050001@pm6-35.kalama.com...

Evolution Not Scientific*

The "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory.

Here

are examples to show this to be true:

1. No natural process which resulted in information forming

automatically

in matter, has ever been observed. Neither is this possible in the

most

spectacular or costly experiments.

Is there information in a spiral galaxies.
Is there information in a snowflake
Is there information in rock crystals
Is there information in the ripples of wind blown sand.

I just gave you four examples of natural processes that anyone will

admit

that they can get information from. And which are being created natural
everyday in a direct conflict of what you said.

Depends upon the defination of 'natural' What defination are you using?

What difference does that make? Are you denying the existence of snowflakes?

No, God's creation of the snowflake is pretty impressive.

In article <8UEfb.53952$Of2.2143170@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote:

Natural - produced by nature.
What evidence do you have of this creator. No evidence it's not science.

Tee hee hee, what evidence do you have that tomatoe plants and giraffes
have a common ancestor rather than a common creator, no evidence and it's
not science.

God created the natural and wrote the laws of chemistry, physics, and
morality. Based upon the legacy of Einstien, there may be more unseen
than there is seen, are you saying that biology is excluding possibilities
that it hasn't even looked at yet? That would not be scientific to be so
closed minded.

In article <8UEfb.53952$Of2.2143170@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0410031256400001@sdn-ap-040dcwashp0386.dialsprint.net...

In article <qrifb.66645$eS5.56365@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane

<lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote:

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-0310030842050001@pm6-35.kalama.com...

Evolution Not Scientific*

The "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory.

Here

are examples to show this to be true:

1. No natural process which resulted in information forming

automatically

in matter, has ever been observed. Neither is this possible in

most

spectacular or costly experiments.

Is there information in a spiral galaxies.
Is there information in a snowflake
Is there information in rock crystals
Is there information in the ripples of wind blown sand.

I just gave you four examples of natural processes that anyone will

admit

that they can get information from. And which are being created

everyday in a direct conflict of what you said.

Depends upon the defination of 'natural' What defination are you

The Creator wrote the laws of chemistry, physics, as well as morality,

He is a lawful God, why would He violate His own laws within His
creation? It sounds like the defination of natural that you are using

a metaphysical component.

Natural - produced by nature.
What evidence do you have of this creator. No evidence it's not science.

Tee hee hee, what evidence do you have that tomatoe plants and giraffes
have a common ancestor rather than a common creator, no evidence and it's
not science.

God created the natural and wrote the laws of chemistry, physics, and
morality. Based upon the legacy of Einstien, there may be more unseen
than there is seen, are you saying that biology is excluding possibilities
that it hasn't even looked at yet? That would not be scientific to be so
closed minded.

2. No transition from one basic kind to another has ever been

observed.

(mutational changes in dogs is not an example of this so don't

try...)

Dogs are descended from wolves, are wolves and Chihuahuas the

"basic Kind" Just because you say it's not an example doesn't make

since your not an expert on anything.

IOW, unless one is a doctor, he can't administer an aspiran, unless he

an attorney, he can't represent himself in court, not being an expert.
Have you ever read the parable of the Emperor's clothes? Sounds a bit

intellectual ivory tower snobbery.

The snobbery was in the sentence from IKHDY "(mutational changes in

is not an example of this so don't even try...)" Sounds pretty snobby to

telling me what evidence I can and can't use. Who elected IKNDY as an
expert.

Tee hee hee, You said natural produced by nature, Sounds pretty snobby to
me telling the Creastor what process He can and can't use.

Glad you admit though that there are mutational changes in dogs

because

that's what makes Greyhounds run faster then a Grey Wolf or a

have better olfactory senses then Wolves which rely mostly on

This

is of course a beneficial mutation that you say is impossible.

Mutation or intra-species variation? Breeders can enhance basic

traits already part of the code, but they have never been able to

greyhounds that will be a common ancestor of a line of cats.

I imagine if breeders try to make a cat they could probably come

but most are in the business to make money not science, breeders have

been trying to make a better dog not a cat since good cats are already
around.

Tee hee hee, breeders whould say that they couldn't if they wanted to.

Could it all be the result of hybridization, the characteristics

we see in dogs don't fit Mendelian genetics very well at all. There's no
blending of traits in Mendelian Genetics add to the fact that this has

going on for tens of thousands of years and the extremely wide

from a Chihuahua to a wild Wolf and you have a good case for mutational
differences. But to be absolutely sure the dog Genome project is under

and that will help settle any doubt. There may have been other studies

Could it be? We don't know yet. The dog genome project is interesting,
but based upon the human genome project, full understanding is probably
decades away at best.

Oh and just in case you want a non dog transitional try this fish

legs

Acanthostega (fish with legs)

Quoting from the site:
The relationships of Acanthostega remain unresolved pending a thorough
cladistic analysis, though provisional attempts have suggested that it

one of the earliest limbed vertebrates (Ahlberg and Milner 1994,

and Coates 1995, Carroll 1995, Laurin and Reisz 1997). However, it may

more closely related to crown tetrapods than to Metaxygnathus and the
recently described Ventastega (Ahlberg 1995).

IOW, the cladograms must be changed again (but they have already been
changed thousands of times already). The operative words are "remain
unresolved" "provisional attempts have suggested", "However, it may

Cladograms are based upon the assumption that similarities in animals
suggest that they have a common ancestor, it is equally valid to

that they have a common Creator, the caldograms don't even have to

The belief that all life is related is based on physical evidence such

the relationship of our DNA to that of a banana or yeast (identical or

identical genes)

True, but the same evidence also supports the hypothesis that banannas and
yeast have a common creator with equal validity.

The belief of a common creator is based on no evidence and therefore is

science.

Tee hee hee, the same evidence supports either hypothesis, and neither
have been proven nor disproven.

3. The "hypercycle theory" devised by M. Eigen for explaining the

origin

of the first life, has never been varified experimentally. And

conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is

there

any relation to reality in the theory.

All scientist admit that the first forms of life are yet to be
explained.

Some even admit that the appearance of a common ancestor are yet to be
explained.

Cite

Why do I have to accept your statement that ALL scientists admit, but have
to prove that merely one doesn't? Sounds like a double standard.

4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and the "missing

have

never been found. All fossils found represent complete

perfect organisms, many of which are still with us today and
unchanged(e.g.,see Jellyfish fossils).

Please give one example of a jellyfish that has gone unchanged

the

fossil record. Just one (scientific name please).

No one disputes intra-species variataion and adaption of a species to
environmental conditions. The argument is that tomatoe plants and
giraffes have a common ancestor, not that jellyfish can't adapt to

in enviromnent.

In fact there are not any living decendents of fossilized

that

have not gone unchanged, that includes colecanths, jellyfish, etc.

Evolution

works on everything.

Intra-species variation occurs on everything, but that does not

that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common ancesotor.

It's the only known explanation that fits the evidence without

into consideration of a metaphysical reason which science cannot do.

Tee hee hee, assuming that only 'known' natural causes and that God didn't
do it is metaphysical reasoning, not scientific reasoning.

Your

constant pointing to a creator suggest not a scientific explanation but

of personal belief.

Tee hee hee, your constant pointing to a common ancestor suggest not a
scientific explanation but one of personal belief.

It has also become clear from the scientific objections discussed

evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its

blind supporters. The suppositions and opinion supporting

to

men is only the procuct of minds that evidently have not

their own claimed evolution...

Nice sentiments.
Evolution is probably the most confirmed scientific theory on

books,

Only under the assumption and limiting condition that it is true.

No the physical evidence.

Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionary mantra #5, the physical evidence shall
not be allowed to prove a common creator.

There are literally thousands of books filled with evidence for

evolution.

But the same evidence supports the equally valid conslucion that there

a common Creator as well.

There is no evidence of a creator,

Tee hee hee, there is no evidence of a common ancestor of tomatoe plants
and giraffes.

Not to mention the thousands of museums that are filled with fossils
millions of years old that refute everything you say.

Tee hee hee, only under the assumption and limiting condition that

plants and giraffes do indeed have or even could have an unproven

ancestor.

It's not an assumption but an idea based on physical evidence.

Tee hee hee, but the same phyusical evidence does not invalidate that they
have a common Creator.

There is not one piece of evidence for the story of creation as

related

in the Bible and its time you realized it's an allegory. The vast

majority

of Christians already do.

Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionist mantra #55, everyone believes it, you
must be stupid or something. Truth is not a democratic process, if
everyone believs a lie, it is still not truth. There is not sufficent
evidence that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common ancestor and

time you realized that its only a hypothesis, and not the only

Never said it was.
You obviously missed the part "There is not one piece of evidence for

story of creation " which has nothing to do majority opinion.

Tee hee hee, are you talking about the revelation of creation or the
scientific theory of creation? You seem confused.

Common decent is based on physical evidence regardless of what you

Tee hee hee, a common Creator is based on physical evidence regardless of
what your religious beliefs.

Lane

'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.'
- Aldous Huxley

How true, the Creator doees not cease to exist because He is ignored.

No evidence of a creator.

Tee hee hee, no evidence to disprove His existance.

Aldous, now there is a real raical funddie religious evolutionists who
hated his Creator.

It's a quote that's all, let it stand on it's own merits without

the writer.

Tee hee hee, no attack, he was a radical fundie religious evolutionists
based upon the physical evidence.

--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson