| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Gabriel" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2008 03:04:10 PM |
| Object: |
Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
Excerpt:
" Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let’s take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
2. Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution? .. "
.
|
|
| User: "theSalamander" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
07 Jan 2008 06:36:24 AM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
Excerpt:
" Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let's take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
2. Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution? .. "
This is not just a reply to your original post above, but the other replies
under it.
Firstly, the above passage IS typical creationist rubbish from AiG. Their
whole thing about "information" is that they leave the word undefined,
simply bantering about how "mutations do not add information". As the word
information is understood by information-theory, both mutations and natural
selection directly add information to an organism and population. The latter
directly communicates information about the environment by eliminating
traits that do not favour survival (so technically, the information
communicated to an organism is about the environment its ancestors lived
in).
You have asked Free-Lunch to support his claim that AiG have never produced
any genuine scientific material in either support of creationism or against
evolution. You did this by asking him to list every single claim they've
ever made in relation to anything, plus a corresponding, detailed and
referenced refutation of each claim. This is plain disingenuous and you know
it. Such a task would be ludicrously exhausting and time-consuming, but that
doesn't mean "Free Lunch" is wrong. I'm sure if you picked out any
individual claim they have which they say disproves evolution (of your
choosing), it would be easy enough to refute.
Some posters here do write silly things to the effect of "Creationism is
stupid" but refuse to elaborate. Personally, I am of the opinion that this
doesn't help anyone and only serves to superficially validate equally silly
creationist claims that atheists know only to respond with insults or scorn.
When someone actually does do this - fine; rebuke them. Nonetheless, AiG's
lack of science and scientific credential remains.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
11 Jan 2008 09:03:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:36:24 GMT, "theSalamander"
<notarealemail@nospamthanks.co.nospam> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
Excerpt:
" Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let's take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
2. Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution? .. "
This is not just a reply to your original post above, but the other replies
under it.
Firstly, the above passage IS typical creationist rubbish from AiG. Their
whole thing about "information" is that they leave the word undefined,
It's not undefined. DNA contains information on how the organism
is to grow. Size. Shape. Colors. Organs. Distinct features.
Everything. This is the information. And it has been shown that
mutations do not create any new information, but merely shuffles
around information in the DNA the species in question already
had. You need brand new information in the DNA to suddenly get a
wingless, featherless creature, for example, to start growing
feathers and wings. And the creation of such new information, as
science has shown, has not once been shown to ever come from
mutations: only reshuffling of information already there, or the
complete loss of information that used to be there.
simply bantering about how "mutations do not add information". As the word
information is understood by information-theory, both mutations and natural
selection directly add information to an organism and population.
A claim that is completely _scientifically_ baseless. Natural
selection only says _why_ you _think_ macro evolution happens. It
does not scientifically show at all _how_ it happens - i.e., the
mechanism.
The latter
directly communicates information about the environment by eliminating
traits that do not favour survival (so technically, the information
communicated to an organism is about the environment its ancestors lived
in).
That's a belief about how the environment creates new information
in their DNA. Not at all observable, testable, or verifiable.
i.e., not a scientific claim.
You have asked Free-Lunch to support his claim that AiG have never produced
any genuine scientific material in either support of creationism or against
evolution.
No, he claimed that every one of the arguments they ever made had
been refuted. So I called him on what was obviously a less than
honest statement, indicating he needs to show how he knows this
claim of his is true: give a list of every argument they've ever
made, and link to the refutation of it. Now of course that's as
impossible to do as his original claim was.
You did this by asking him to list every single claim they've
ever made in relation to anything, plus a corresponding, detailed and
referenced refutation of each claim. This is plain disingenuous
Unfortunately, he's the one that claimed it was true. Asking for
him to show what he claimed as true is disingenuous?!
and you know
it. Such a task would be ludicrously exhausting and time-consuming, but that
doesn't mean "Free Lunch" is wrong.
Actually it does. It shows quite plainly he has no idea if what
he said is true or not, but he just wanted to say it because it
sounded good.
I'm sure if you picked out any
individual claim they have which they say disproves evolution (of your
choosing), it would be easy enough to refute.
Some posters here do write silly things to the effect of "Creationism is
stupid" but refuse to elaborate. Personally, I am of the opinion that this
doesn't help anyone and only serves to superficially validate equally silly
creationist claims that atheists know only to respond with insults or scorn.
Not when my responses are also elaborated. Their insults rarely
come with honest elaborations or anything to back up their
claims. A huge difference. :-(
When someone actually does do this - fine; rebuke them. Nonetheless, AiG's
lack of science and scientific credential remains.
That's a bold claim. You are of course free to believe whatever
you want, but if they lack scientific credentials, then it should
be trivial for you to refute anything they claim. When you start
actually showing this by convincingly refuting specific claims,
rather than just claiming it's true and expecting us to take your
word for it, you might then be on to something.
You could start with the article I'm pointing out here.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
How about more than just your opinion that even this one article
can be scientifically disproved?
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
11 Jan 2008 09:27:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:03:00 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ohago3p26dhj4jqsnj0nup5pavktfqmn74@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:36:24 GMT, "theSalamander"
<notarealemail@nospamthanks.co.nospam> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
Excerpt:
" Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let's take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
2. Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution? .. "
This is not just a reply to your original post above, but the other replies
under it.
Firstly, the above passage IS typical creationist rubbish from AiG. Their
whole thing about "information" is that they leave the word undefined,
It's not undefined. DNA contains information on how the organism
is to grow. Size. Shape. Colors. Organs. Distinct features.
Everything. This is the information.
Not really. DNA and the developmental environment together determine
what happens to cells and organisms.
And it has been shown that
mutations do not create any new information, but merely shuffles
around information in the DNA the species in question already
had.
Please provide evidence to support that claim. You'll have to go back
and give me a real definition of information first. The one you offered
so far is meaningless.
You need brand new information in the DNA to suddenly get a
wingless, featherless creature, for example, to start growing
feathers and wings.
Why? How much different is a scale from a feather?
And the creation of such new information, as
science has shown, has not once been shown to ever come from
mutations: only reshuffling of information already there, or the
complete loss of information that used to be there.
Once again, you are either lying about information or using it in such
an absurd manner as to be useless. You clearly are completely uninformed
about developmental biology.
simply bantering about how "mutations do not add information". As the word
information is understood by information-theory, both mutations and natural
selection directly add information to an organism and population.
A claim that is completely _scientifically_ baseless. Natural
selection only says _why_ you _think_ macro evolution happens. It
does not scientifically show at all _how_ it happens - i.e., the
mechanism.
That meant nothing.
First, if you want to make scientific claims, you need to be able to
support them with scientific references. Hint: The Bible is not a
scientific reference. Hint: Those who use the Bible to invent their
'science' have a demonstrated history of lying about science.
The latter
directly communicates information about the environment by eliminating
traits that do not favour survival (so technically, the information
communicated to an organism is about the environment its ancestors lived
in).
That's a belief about how the environment creates new information
in their DNA. Not at all observable, testable, or verifiable.
i.e., not a scientific claim.
Once again, you have borne false witness. You don't get to dismiss every
scientific fact that doesn't fit into your religious dogma.
You have asked Free-Lunch to support his claim that AiG have never produced
any genuine scientific material in either support of creationism or against
evolution.
No, he claimed that every one of the arguments they ever made had
been refuted.
Where did I claim that? Even the most dishonest, fraudulent criminals
will use facts if they happen to fit in with their overall narrative of
dishonesty. AiG is one such dishonest group. If they happen to actually
have a fact that supports the general tenor of their lies, they will use
it, but that does not mean that they are not intentionally misleading
people. They are.
So I called him on what was obviously a less than
honest statement, indicating he needs to show how he knows this
claim of his is true: give a list of every argument they've ever
made, and link to the refutation of it. Now of course that's as
impossible to do as his original claim was.
Since I never said that and you have now repeated that falsehood again,
let me repeat that your commitment to dishonesty will not change the
facts. Your willingness to shill for theives like AiG will not be
forgiven. Your moral bankruptcy does not disappear because you claim to
be lying for God. Is your god so pathetic and foolish that he needs your
transparent lies?
You did this by asking him to list every single claim they've
ever made in relation to anything, plus a corresponding, detailed and
referenced refutation of each claim. This is plain disingenuous
Unfortunately, he's the one that claimed it was true. Asking for
him to show what he claimed as true is disingenuous?!
As you know, that was not my claim. That is your false representation of
my claim.
and you know
it. Such a task would be ludicrously exhausting and time-consuming, but that
doesn't mean "Free Lunch" is wrong.
Actually it does. It shows quite plainly he has no idea if what
he said is true or not, but he just wanted to say it because it
sounded good.
What I said was true. What you intentionally misrepresented about what I
said was not true. You have chosen to bear false witness. You have
chosen to lie rather than repent. You have chosen to mock your god by
telling such foolish stories.
I'm sure if you picked out any
individual claim they have which they say disproves evolution (of your
choosing), it would be easy enough to refute.
Some posters here do write silly things to the effect of "Creationism is
stupid" but refuse to elaborate. Personally, I am of the opinion that this
doesn't help anyone and only serves to superficially validate equally silly
creationist claims that atheists know only to respond with insults or scorn.
Not when my responses are also elaborated. Their insults rarely
come with honest elaborations or anything to back up their
claims. A huge difference. :-(
When you stop being dishonest, people will stop mocking your dishonesty.
When someone actually does do this - fine; rebuke them. Nonetheless, AiG's
lack of science and scientific credential remains.
That's a bold claim. You are of course free to believe whatever
you want, but if they lack scientific credentials, then it should
be trivial for you to refute anything they claim.
Their claims have been refuted over and over. Your unwillingness to
admit that does not make the facts change.
When you start
actually showing this by convincingly refuting specific claims,
rather than just claiming it's true and expecting us to take your
word for it, you might then be on to something.
The lies of creationists have long since been refuted. You have to lie
about that to try to persuade us that you don't know how dishonest they
are.
You could start with the article I'm pointing out here.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
How about more than just your opinion that even this one article
can be scientifically disproved?
The liars at Answers in Genesis have chosen to play games with the
meanings of words. The 'conversation' is an example of the logical error
of equivocation. The rest of the article is a careful mix of accurate
and misleading comments with the ultimate result that it is a lie about
science, a lie that any of their poorly educated followers would easily
be misled about. The conclusion about the Bible is completely
unwarranted by anything that came before.
You lose.
They are still liars.
You are still their shill.
Therefore, you, too, are a liar.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
07 Jan 2008 07:26:15 AM |
|
|
theSalamander wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
Excerpt:
" Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let's take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
2. Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution? .. "
This is not just a reply to your original post above, but the other replies
under it.
Firstly, the above passage IS typical creationist rubbish from AiG. Their
whole thing about "information" is that they leave the word undefined,
simply bantering about how "mutations do not add information". As the word
information is understood by information-theory, both mutations and natural
selection directly add information to an organism and population. The latter
directly communicates information about the environment by eliminating
traits that do not favour survival (so technically, the information
communicated to an organism is about the environment its ancestors lived
in).
You have asked Free-Lunch to support his claim that AiG have never produced
any genuine scientific material in either support of creationism or against
evolution. You did this by asking him to list every single claim they've
ever made in relation to anything, plus a corresponding, detailed and
referenced refutation of each claim. This is plain disingenuous and you know
it. Such a task would be ludicrously exhausting and time-consuming, but that
doesn't mean "Free Lunch" is wrong. I'm sure if you picked out any
individual claim they have which they say disproves evolution (of your
choosing), it would be easy enough to refute.
Some posters here do write silly things to the effect of "Creationism is
stupid" but refuse to elaborate. Personally, I am of the opinion that this
doesn't help anyone and only serves to superficially validate equally silly
creationist claims that atheists know only to respond with insults or scorn.
When someone actually does do this - fine; rebuke them. Nonetheless, AiG's
lack of science and scientific credential remains.
(newsgroups culled)
Here's a fairly typical example of AIG "science" (Joshua's long day "scientifically" explained :) ):
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/longday.asp>
It is *amazing* that *even* brain dead religous freaks like Gabriel can take this seriously
and consider it "science"...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
07 Jan 2008 08:12:39 AM |
|
|
Garbriel > Scientists are being suppressed, blacklisted, and attacked
if they dare point out how evidence contradicts macro evolution or the
big bang theory, or point out how the evidence supports creation by
design:
Please! Notice that all of Gabriel's material comes from a biased
source - and the discovery institute isn't about discovery at all, but
about spreading its beliefs.It, along with people like Gabriel, spread
misinformation and junk science. And suppression is based on that
realism, that these people aren't about science. They distort and
twist and make the data fit their conclusion rather than their
conclusion fit the data. This isn't a conspiracy against any religion
it is the prevention of hack science. Also note that Gabriel didn't
attempt to rebut any points presented to him by myself or others. He
is not about truth or science but about his religion.
The movie Expelled should be just that... it is also interesting that
the producers of the movie had to turn to dishonesty and trickery
(just like creation "science"). The movie looks like it is going to be
nothing but half truths, propaganda, Instances of Godwin's law,
Strawman arguments and carefully edited sound bytes from respected
scientists like Richard Dawkins who says "As a scientist, I'm pretty
hostile to a rival doctrine...", which was likely followed by
clarification of which parts of the rival doctrine he is opposed to.
But we aren't going to hear that bit as it is heavily edited to make
him sound unreasonable and ignorant. Which is a very cheap tactic to
use and yet so typical of creationists, right Gabriel?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?hp
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/expelled-no-int.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
25 Jan 2008 03:59:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 06:12:39 -0800 (PST),
"natezenmaster@gmail.com" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
Garbriel > Scientists are being suppressed, blacklisted, and attacked
if they dare point out how evidence contradicts macro evolution or the
big bang theory, or point out how the evidence supports creation by
design:
Please! Notice that all of Gabriel's material comes from a biased
source -
Notice again your tactics: smear campaign on the source, rather
than focussing on the information. With your post you show yet
again the main tactic of macro evolutionists:
Scientists are being suppressed, blacklisted, and attacked if
they dare point out how evidence contradicts macro evolution or
the big bang theory, or point out how the evidence supports
creation by design:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/congressional_report_exposes_f.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N85D4VJ6ZZFR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_on_Evolution
And that's the tip of the iceberg.
See the upcoming documentary where such suppression is exposed:
http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/
and the discovery institute isn't about discovery at all, but
about spreading its beliefs.It, along with people like Gabriel, spread
misinformation and junk science. And suppression is based on that
realism, that these people aren't about science. They distort and
twist and make the data fit their conclusion rather than their
conclusion fit the data. This isn't a conspiracy against any religion
it is the prevention of hack science. Also note that Gabriel didn't
attempt to rebut any points presented to him by myself or others. He
is not about truth or science but about his religion.
The movie Expelled should be just that... it is also interesting that
the producers of the movie had to turn to dishonesty and trickery
(just like creation "science"). The movie looks like it is going to be
nothing but half truths, propaganda, Instances of Godwin's law,
Strawman arguments and carefully edited sound bytes from respected
scientists like Richard Dawkins who says "As a scientist, I'm pretty
hostile to a rival doctrine...", which was likely followed by
clarification of which parts of the rival doctrine he is opposed to.
But we aren't going to hear that bit as it is heavily edited to make
him sound unreasonable and ignorant. Which is a very cheap tactic to
use and yet so typical of creationists, right Gabriel?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?hp
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/expelled-no-int.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
25 Jan 2008 08:27:26 AM |
|
|
No Gabriel,
What? Smear campaign on the source? Did you read my post? I gave you
information on the story showing that there was a lot more to that
editor and his "suppression" than the Disc Inst would lead you to
believe. Its you that is not focusing on the evidence. The point of my
previous post was two-fold:
(1) if the editor was known to have previously allowed unreviewed
articles - how good is he? If he holds on to specimens, books, etc
long after they are due back, etc, his peers were already worried
about him prior to the ID article, etc - then isn't there a lot more
to the story?
(2) how come the Disc Inst didn't tell the whole story? I gave you
just a few pieces of information on the editor that showed there are a
great many reasons why he found himself in the predicament. How come
the Disc Institute has such a one sided slant on it? If they are about
truth then why didn't they present it as it happened?
Obviously - as had been done before - the credibility of the Disc
Institute is nil. Yet, even now you still post links from them to
support your point. That is the point, is that you sources of
information distort things - and yet no matter how many times one of
their arguments/articles is rebutted, you still post them again!
It is interesting, isn't it, that you repeatedly promote distortions
or sources that are distorted. The movie Expelled should be just
that... it is also interesting that
the producers of the movie had to turn to dishonesty and trickery
(just like creation "science"). The movie looks like it is going to be
nothing but half truths, propaganda, Strawman... From what I have
read and heard, its going to be chocked with tactfully but distorted
clips that were edited from interviewees that weren't aware of the
true motive of the film - which is a very cheap tactic to use and yet
so typical of creationists, right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?hp
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/expelled-no-int.html
I have previously rebutted your purported scientific evidence - which
was drawn from these decrepit sources, and now, in short (but with
more possible length), I can show you how they slant and distort
stories to make something more sinister or conspirative. In either
case,
...the point is..
it should eventually dawn on you that you need to find better - more
honest and reliable - information. And that if you do not and you
continue to post these distortions then you become as guilty as they
because you have been shown that they are dishonest. You will be
knowingly presenting distortions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
25 Jan 2008 03:59:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:27:26 -0800 (PST),
"natezenmaster@gmail.com" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
No Gabriel,
What? Smear campaign on the source? Did you read my post?
I read your post. I gave you this information:
--------
http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/congressional_report_exposes_f.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N85D4VJ6ZZFR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_on_Evolution
And that's the tip of the iceberg.
See the upcoming documentary where such suppression is exposed:
http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/
--------
And in response you just try to discredit every single source
with the comment: "Notice that all of Gabriel's material comes
from a biased source - and the discovery institute isn't about
discovery at all, but about spreading its beliefs." So your
refutation was nothing more than your opinion about the nature of
the sources; i.e., a smear campaign on their reputation. And now
that you've smeared their reputation, you hope that's a
refutation of what they actually show. It's not. You are of
course free to believe it's a refutation, but the truth is it's
not - it's yet another attempt to attack their reputations, which
by coincidence is exactly what macro evolutionists do to
scientists that dare disagree with their speculations. :-( I know
you don't agree, but you don't have to - the truth is the truth
whether you agree with it or not.
I gave you
information on the story showing that there was a lot more to that
editor and his "suppression" than the Disc Inst would lead you to
believe. Its you that is not focusing on the evidence. The point of my
previous post was two-fold:
(1) if the editor was known to have previously allowed unreviewed
articles - how good is he? If he holds on to specimens, books, etc
long after they are due back, etc, his peers were already worried
about him prior to the ID article, etc - then isn't there a lot more
to the story?
(2) how come the Disc Inst didn't tell the whole story? I gave you
just a few pieces of information on the editor that showed there are a
great many reasons why he found himself in the predicament. How come
the Disc Institute has such a one sided slant on it? If they are about
truth then why didn't they present it as it happened?
Obviously - as had been done before - the credibility of the Disc
Institute is nil. Yet, even now you still post links from them to
support your point. That is the point, is that you sources of
information distort things - and yet no matter how many times one of
their arguments/articles is rebutted, you still post them again!
It is interesting, isn't it, that you repeatedly promote distortions
or sources that are distorted. The movie Expelled should be just
that... it is also interesting that
the producers of the movie had to turn to dishonesty and trickery
(just like creation "science"). The movie looks like it is going to be
nothing but half truths, propaganda, Strawman... From what I have
read and heard, its going to be chocked with tactfully but distorted
clips that were edited from interviewees that weren't aware of the
true motive of the film - which is a very cheap tactic to use and yet
so typical of creationists, right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?hp
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/expelled-no-int.html
I have previously rebutted your purported scientific evidence - which
was drawn from these decrepit sources, and now, in short (but with
more possible length), I can show you how they slant and distort
stories to make something more sinister or conspirative. In either
case,
..the point is..
it should eventually dawn on you that you need to find better - more
honest and reliable - information. And that if you do not and you
continue to post these distortions then you become as guilty as they
because you have been shown that they are dishonest. You will be
knowingly presenting distortions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
25 Jan 2008 04:10:07 PM |
|
|
Easy questions for you, Gabriel - please answer as honestly and
objectively as you can manage:
Did the Disc Institute fairly portray what happened to this editor or
did they distort or slant the story to make it more controversial and
conspirative against ID?
Does the Disc Institute propagate creationist arguments that have
already been refuted or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
28 Jan 2008 06:39:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:10:07 -0800 (PST),
"natezenmaster@gmail.com" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
Easy questions for you, Gabriel - please answer as honestly and
objectively as you can manage:
How about you start by being honest? You continue to show that
what they claim is true (about smear campaigns taking place
rather than debating actual points brought up) by doing nothing
but attacking now their reputation. You prove the point with
every post you make, as that's all you do: attack their
reputation. And there are many sources that say the same thing,
not just the Discovery Institute.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/congressional_report_exposes_f.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N85D4VJ6ZZFR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_on_Evolution
and I found more for you: they are easy to find.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/academic_persecution_of_scient_1.html
http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/1111629/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i2/magazine.asp
Instead, why don't you for once look at the actual details in
those websites and give a detailed, backed-up refutation? If they
are so wrong, it should be easy to disprove. You don't do this
and instead continue to focus on smearing their reputation.
Exactly my point. If you want to show that you have an intent
besides just smearing their reputations, then start looking at
details and refuting them, with proof that backs up what you
claim.
Until then you continuing to bring reputations to bear only shows
that what all these websites indicate are accurate: blacklisting
and smear campaigns are how they deal with people who dare
disagree with evolution.
Did the Disc Institute fairly portray what happened to this editor or
did they distort or slant the story to make it more controversial and
conspirative against ID?
Does the Disc Institute propagate creationist arguments that have
already been refuted or not?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@home000whatever174" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
06 Jan 2008 03:08:04 PM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_burptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
.... snippeth creationmist crap ....
--
"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
Visit No Answers in Genesis! http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
--
"Ah, brother," said the confessor, "don't you know that whoever calls his
brother Raca is liable to hell fire? Now you have the misfortune to lead
anyone who reads you into immediate temptation to call you Raca. ... "
(Voltaire -The Jesuit Berthia)
--
BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
--
Creepy fundamentalists are an abomination to God ....
"Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination."
Leviticus 11:41
"Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that
creepeth." Leviticus 11:43
--
"Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
06 Jan 2008 04:18:43 PM |
|
|
I doubt Gabriel is really interested in natural selection or
evolution.
From the definitions, if you laughably want to call them that, the
slant and distortion is clear (as is the ignorance). Again, the
hallmark of christian explanations on science like natural selection
and evolution is to disregard all intermediates and jump from start to
end in order to make the theory sound more ridiculous or unlikely.
This is evidenced by "often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable molecules-to-
man evolution." First, unobservable molecules-to-man? Did the author
actually think evolution or natural selection states or expects this
phenomenon? It is nothing more than typical Christian dishonesty - or
very poor scholarship and understanding. Either way, the author
shouldn't be penning an article on the topic... Second, purported by
whom?
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are
heritable become more common in successive generations of a population
of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable
become less common.
Please educate yourself:
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
There is also a book that is pretty cheap ($12 USD) but will provide
you with a better understanding of both evolution and the vast
evidence supporting it.
On Jan 6, 2:08 pm, "Mark T" <moi@home000whatever174> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_burpt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
... snippeth creationmist crap ....
--
"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
Visit No Answers in Genesis! http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
--
"Ah, brother," said the confessor, "don't you know that whoever calls his
brother Raca is liable to hell fire? Now you have the misfortune to lead
anyone who reads you into immediate temptation to call you Raca. ... "
(Voltaire -The Jesuit Berthia)
--
BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
--
Creepy fundamentalists are an abomination to God ....
"Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination."
Leviticus 11:41
"Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that
creepeth." Leviticus 11:43
--
"Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & linkshttp://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 formathttp://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
06 Jan 2008 08:35:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:08:04 +1100, "Mark T"
<moi@home000whatever174> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_burptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
... snippeth creationmist crap ....
Your first attempt at making a point: not a point at all, but an
attack. Ask yourself why you resort to such things. If you really
had a point, it would not need such assistance from your attacks.
And if you really do have a point, such attacks serve only to
discredit it further.
--
"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
Visit No Answers in Genesis! http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
A site that mostly re-links to the information on some other
website that was already refuted on AIG, and clearly is part of a
smear campaign specifically directed at AIG, not the actual
information. And this site doesn't specifically seem to refute
any of the new information brought up by AIG.
Now, if you want to show a specific article that refutes the
specific article I linked, please do so. Meanwhile, linking a
website whose biggest goal is a smear campaign against the
reputation of AIG does not bode well for your cause.
In the meantime, you might be interested in the documentary soon
to be released: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which blows
the whistle on such smear campaigns and blacklisting done by
evolutionists to any and every scientist that dares to point out
the evidence doesn't support their theories, or supports a
different theory even more.
Scientists are being suppressed, blacklisted, and attacked if
they dare point out how evidence contradicts macro evolution or
the big bang theory, or point out how the evidence supports
creation by design:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/congressional_report_exposes_f.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N85D4VJ6ZZFR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_on_Evolution
And that's the tip of the iceberg.
gabriel
--
"Ah, brother," said the confessor, "don't you know that whoever calls his
brother Raca is liable to hell fire? Now you have the misfortune to lead
anyone who reads you into immediate temptation to call you Raca. ... "
(Voltaire -The Jesuit Berthia)
--
BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
--
Creepy fundamentalists are an abomination to God ....
"Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination."
Leviticus 11:41
"Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that
creepeth." Leviticus 11:43
--
"Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz the Einherjer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
06 Jan 2008 08:59:36 PM |
|
|
Babbliel:
...molecules-to-man evolution...
We already know that you are willfully braindead. No need to point it out
time and again.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
06 Jan 2008 10:52:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:59:36 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
Babbliel:
...molecules-to-man evolution...
We already know that you are willfully braindead. No need to point it out
time and again.
Please ask yourself why you believe personal attacks qualify as
science. Unfortunately, it's an all too common trait of
evolutionists. Hardly scientific, and very telling.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz the Einherjer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
07 Jan 2008 10:46:25 AM |
|
|
Babbliel:
Please ask yourself why you believe personal attacks qualify as
science.
You tell me. You started the insults.
Namely by hurling ***** that's been debunked a gazillion times already in
this newsgroup alone.
Unfortunately, it's an all too common trait of
evolutionists. Hardly scientific, and very telling.
*chuckle*
One of the best signs that you face a morontheist? It blames the victim for
everything.
Everyone with the IQ of a slice of bread (that's about ten times your IQ)
sees through your ludicrous game, points and laughs.
Moron.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
07 Jan 2008 11:31:07 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:46:25 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Babbliel:
Please ask yourself why you believe personal attacks qualify as
science.
You tell me. You started the insults.
Namely by hurling ***** that's
^ ^ ^ ^ That's insulting. And posting an opinion isn't "hurling
*****." Posting an opinion is also not posting "insults."
And you re-confirm the opinions of many that you want those who
believe in God and Creation to "wake up."
But in this 2008 after DECADES of "enlightenment", you do not stand
for ANY level of tolerance.
been debunked a gazillion times already in
this newsgroup alone.
^ ^ ^ Your opinion, and NOT shared by MANY scientists.
Some of our most prominent scientists who
1. believe in God
2. believe in Special Creation
are our astronauts.
We have a number of high-ranking military officers (generals, etc),
who are Christians and Creationists.
If you missed the point, there are any number of specialties in the
military that are filled by scientists. One can't be a general without
a firm grasp of science, which is why some levels of the military
require classes in "military sciences."
Unfortunately, it's an all too common trait of
evolutionists. Hardly scientific, and very telling.
*chuckle*
^ ^ ^ ^ Your comments prove the points the creationists and
"theists" make.
One of the best signs that you face a morontheist? It blames the victim for
everything.
Everyone with the IQ of a slice of bread (that's about ten times your IQ)
sees through your ludicrous game, points and laughs.
Moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
07 Jan 2008 11:54:09 AM |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> whined:
^ ^ ^ ^ That's insulting.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
08 Jan 2008 07:53:17 AM |
|
|
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
news:f4o4o3hahim2rhvq94mvdattl9iloenmna@4ax.com wanted to demonstrate
beyond any possible doubt, that he is really as ignorant as he pretends
to be.
From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution?
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:31:07 -0800
Message-ID: <f4o4o3hahim2rhvq94mvdattl9iloenmna@4ax.com>
References: <ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com> <fls4ko$jtr$1
@online.de> <jrb3o3hjiif4ilaisip4q6343l6ac2l9b0@4ax.com> <fltl3q$acv$1
@online.de>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080106-0, 01/06/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 61
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6f920c6d.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=Vg4lUdbZiGK\i2S_D1manFF85SKJoGf>DN\2ARnNJ0;Im=:Gl@
1G7nHF85SKJoGf>D_@<3;gTSkhEH2SheIFScMJYD=lkDF[SmG
X-Complaints-To:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:46:25 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Babbliel:
Please ask yourself why you believe personal attacks qualify as
science.
You tell me. You started the insults.
Namely by hurling ***** that's
^ ^ ^ ^ That's insulting. And posting an opinion isn't "hurling
*****." Posting an opinion is also not posting "insults."
Posting an opinion based on personal prejudice that does not correlate to
the facts of the matter is hurling *****. It is also an insult to the
intelligence of others.
And you re-confirm the opinions of many that you want those who
believe in God and Creation to "wake up."
Where did he say that? or is this another one of your special
interpolations?
But in this 2008 after DECADES of "enlightenment", you do not stand
for ANY level of tolerance.
Tolerance, what would you know about tolerance? everyone's supposed to
tolerate your *****, but not be allowed to provide an equal amount of
***** back. You are intolerant of people that know more about your
mythology can you do, you are intolerant about people knowing more about
the sciences than you ever will. You are intolerant of people that know
more about mythology and you ever will. And yet you want tolerance?
been debunked a gazillion times already in
this newsgroup alone.
^ ^ ^ Your opinion, and NOT shared by MANY scientists.
Scientists whose works and names you cannot provide.
Some of our most prominent scientists who
1. believe in God
2. believe in Special Creation
But do not use in science to attempt to prove those misconceptions. As
long as there released to not interfere with what they are paid to do,
there is no problem. As long as they work for organizations such as the
ICR, there's no problem.
are our astronauts.
What are our astronauts? are you trying to insinuate that everyone is a
xian and believes in special creation?
We have a number of high-ranking military officers (generals, etc),
who are Christians and Creationists.
& the military is starting to pay for that mistake.
If you missed the point, there are any number of specialties in the
military that are filled by scientists. One can't be a general without
a firm grasp of science, which is why some levels of the military
require classes in "military sciences."
Do you even have a clue all out what military sciences are? Are you
always this blatantly ignorant and proud of it.
The military sciences include such things as mathematics and engineering,
they do not include pure science. Yes, military officers are encouraged
to learn more and science is a way to do that, but that does not mean
they are required to know science. The way you use word science, it's
like a blanket term, and totally useless.
Now which scientific disciplines are general officers required to know?
Unfortunately, it's an all too common trait of
evolutionists. Hardly scientific, and very telling.
*chuckle*
^ ^ ^ ^ Your comments prove the points the creationists and
"theists" make.
And which points would those be, you have never made one that had any
merit. Well you have proven yourself to be a liar, but I don't consider
that to have very much merit myself.
which wannabe this time Jonny, the one who was to share his ignorance
with everybody and will pout if they do not accepted as valid and true.
walksalone is not surprised to find Jonny attempting to convince himself
that he knows anything much beyond how to go to the bathroom, if he can
remember for the bathroom is. And if he can remember what to do what she
gets there. The pity is, he's not smart enough to convince anybody else.
But then, the narcisstic individual does not have to be that smart.
And now, another charming ally from the charming St. John the theater for
liars.
Don't believe, but don't re-write the Bible to suit yourself. Instead,
you
might want to check the Peshitta translation, the first century Bible,
which
most pseudo-scholar/skeptics don'teven know about. Lobotomy has laughed
at it,
but his scholarship is dubious, since he is a hard-core skeptic, and
quite
possibly demon-possessed. It is doubtful that Lobotomy is open enough to
give
any serious consideration to pro-Bible scholarship. I have confronted him
on
that issue before, and he lamely claims "there isn't any". Well, I
personally
have known roughly a dozen Bible scholars in my lifetime who read the
Hebrew,
Greek, and Aramic portions of the Bible fluently. One of my professors in
seminary was Dr. Butrus Abdul-Malik, an Egyptian Christian member of one
of
the original 7 churches (the churches the Epistles were written to), and
he
read a unique Bible he invented, which consisted of a Hebrew Old
Testament
bound to a Greek New Testament. He didn't bother with a translation. And
I've
known several scholars who were involved in the translation of the
ancient
(1st century) manuscripts into the modern translations we use today.
Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:37:33 CDT
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
08 Jan 2008 10:37:42 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:53:17 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<walksalone@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
news:f4o4o3hahim2rhvq94mvdattl9iloenmna@4ax.com wanted to demonstrate
beyond any possible doubt, that he is really as ignorant as he pretends
to be.
From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution?
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:31:07 -0800
Message-ID: <f4o4o3hahim2rhvq94mvdattl9iloenmna@4ax.com>
References: <ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com> <fls4ko$jtr$1
@online.de> <jrb3o3hjiif4ilaisip4q6343l6ac2l9b0@4ax.com> <fltl3q$acv$1
@online.de>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080106-0, 01/06/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 61
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6f920c6d.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=Vg4lUdbZiGK\i2S_D1manFF85SKJoGf>DN\2ARnNJ0;Im=:Gl@
1G7nHF85SKJoGf>D_@<3;gTSkhEH2SheIFScMJYD=lkDF[SmG
X-Complaints-To:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:46:25 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Babbliel:
Please ask yourself why you believe personal attacks qualify as
science.
You tell me. You started the insults.
Namely by hurling ***** that's
^ ^ ^ ^ That's insulting. And posting an opinion isn't "hurling
*****." Posting an opinion is also not posting "insults."
Posting an opinion based on personal prejudice
You really need to get over this crush you have on me!
that does not correlate to
the facts of the matter is hurling *****. It is also an insult to the
intelligence of others.
And you re-confirm the opinions of many that you want those who
believe in God and Creation to "wake up."
Where did he say that? or is this another one of your special
interpolations?
But in this 2008 after DECADES of "enlightenment", you do not stand
for ANY level of tolerance.
Tolerance, what would you know about tolerance? everyone's supposed to
tolerate your *****, but not be allowed to provide an equal amount of
***** back. You are intolerant of people that know more about your
mythology can you do, you are intolerant about people knowing more about
the sciences than you ever will. You are intolerant of people that know
more about mythology and you ever will. And yet you want tolerance?
been debunked a gazillion times already in
this newsgroup alone.
^ ^ ^ Your opinion, and NOT shared by MANY scientists.
Scientists whose works and names you cannot provide.
Some of our most prominent scientists who
1. believe in God
2. believe in Special Creation
But do not use in science to attempt to prove those misconceptions. As
long as there released to not interfere with what they are paid to do,
there is no problem. As long as they work for organizations such as the
ICR, there's no problem.
are our astronauts.
What are our astronauts? are you trying to insinuate that everyone is a
xian and believes in special creation?
We have a number of high-ranking military officers (generals, etc),
who are Christians and Creationists.
& the military is starting to pay for that mistake.
If you missed the point, there are any number of specialties in the
military that are filled by scientists. One can't be a general without
a firm grasp of science, which is why some levels of the military
require classes in "military sciences."
Do you even have a clue all out what military sciences are? Are you
always this blatantly ignorant and proud of it.
The military sciences include such things as mathematics and engineering,
they do not include pure science. Yes, military officers are encouraged
to learn more and science is a way to do that, but that does not mean
they are required to know science. The way you use word science, it's
like a blanket term, and totally useless.
Now which scientific disciplines are general officers required to know?
Unfortunately, it's an all too common trait of
evolutionists. Hardly scientific, and very telling.
*chuckle*
^ ^ ^ ^ Your comments prove the points the creationists and
"theists" make.
And which points would those be, you have never made one that had any
merit. Well you have proven yourself to be a liar, but I don't consider
that to have very much merit myself.
which wannabe this time Jonny, the one who was to share his ignorance
with everybody and will pout if they do not accepted as valid and true.
walksalone is not surprised to find Jonny attempting to convince himself
that he knows anything much beyond how to go to the bathroom, if he can
remember for the bathroom is. And if he can remember what to do what she
gets there. The pity is, he's not smart enough to convince anybody else.
But then, the narcisstic individual does not have to be that smart.
And now, another charming ally from the charming St. John the theater for
liars.
Don't believe, but don't re-write the Bible to suit yourself. Instead,
you
might want to check the Peshitta translation, the first century Bible,
which
most pseudo-scholar/skeptics don'teven know about. Lobotomy has laughed
at it,
but his scholarship is dubious, since he is a hard-core skeptic, and
quite
possibly demon-possessed. It is doubtful that Lobotomy is open enough to
give
any serious consideration to pro-Bible scholarship. I have confronted him
on
that issue before, and he lamely claims "there isn't any". Well, I
personally
have known roughly a dozen Bible scholars in my lifetime who read the
Hebrew,
Greek, and Aramic portions of the Bible fluently. One of my professors in
seminary was Dr. Butrus Abdul-Malik, an Egyptian Christian member of one
of
the original 7 churches (the churches the Epistles were written to), and
he
read a unique Bible he invented, which consisted of a Hebrew Old
Testament
bound to a Greek New Testament. He didn't bother with a translation. And
I've
known several scholars who were involved in the translation of the
ancient
(1st century) manuscripts into the modern translations we use today.
Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:37:33 CDT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
08 Jan 2008 10:43:36 AM |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote with blatant wishful thinking...
You really need to get over this crush you have on me!
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
08 Jan 2008 10:48:03 AM |
|
|
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
news:pl97o35o8dnuorabg1dfc2k351s76j7mab@4ax.com
From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution?
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:37:42 -0800
Message-ID: <pl97o35o8dnuorabg1dfc2k351s76j7mab@4ax.com>
References: <ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com> <fls4ko$jtr$1
@online.de> <jrb3o3hjiif4ilaisip4q6343l6ac2l9b0@4ax.com> <fltl3q$acv$1
@online.de> <f4o4o3hahim2rhvq94mvdattl9iloenmna@4ax.com>
<Xns9A1F504517BB6walks@193.201.53.67>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080107-0, 01/07/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 173
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: c5af3b82.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=LL]8]8Q<cl0AoOBFKfRA`?F85SKJoGf>4:]i:m=X92R5m=:Gl@
1G7n8F85SKJoGf>4_@<3;gTSkh5H2SheIFScM:8VX>1=F7aL3
X-Complaints-To:
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:53:17 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<walksalone@Spamstopper.com> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
news:f4o4o3hahim2rhvq94mvdattl9iloenmna@4ax.com wanted to demonstrate
beyond any possible doubt, that he is really as ignorant as he
pretends to be.
From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution?
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:31:07 -0800
Message-ID: <f4o4o3hahim2rhvq94mvdattl9iloenmna@4ax.com>
References: <ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com> <fls4ko$jtr$1
@online.de> <jrb3o3hjiif4ilaisip4q6343l6ac2l9b0@4ax.com> <fltl3q$acv$1
@online.de>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080106-0, 01/06/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 61
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6f920c6d.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=Vg4lUdbZiGK\i2S_D1manFF85SKJoGf>DN\2ARnNJ0;Im=:Gl@
1G7nHF85SKJoGf>D_@<3;gTSkhEH2SheIFScMJYD=lkDF[SmG
X-Complaints-To:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:46:25 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
Babbliel:
snip
Namely by hurling ***** that's
^ ^ ^ ^ That's insulting. And posting an opinion isn't "hurling
*****." Posting an opinion is also not posting "insults."
Posting an opinion based on personal prejudice
You really need to get over this crush you have on me!
You flatter yourself, I have no desires to be affiliated with you beyond
helping to house train you when you fail to comply with the three
conditions that will prevent our names being in the same message.
snip
Just a reminder for you, & your multiple gods.
`jw attn ho *****`
Do you recall I stated I tire of playing with your excuse of a mind?
Due to your inability to pay attention, or remember, the three ways you
were given to avoid seeing
our names in the same message.
Attention ho <TWHACK> <reholsters rubber chicken>
Oh, lest I forget, TwwwwHACK
Ain't cut & paste time saving though, & as well as being more than your
posts are worth. And it means I don't have to waste the time thinking up
something novel to flatter your delicate ego.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
09 Jan 2008 03:27:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:52:05 -0500, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:59:36 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
Babbliel:
...molecules-to-man evolution...
We already know that you are willfully braindead. No need to point it out
time and again.
Please ask yourself why you believe personal attacks qualify as
science.
Nobody ever said they did, Sport. However, since you wouldn't actually
know science if it crawled up your arse and lit a bonfire, and since
it's a complete waste of time to even attempt to have a serious
discussion with an ignorant, lying fuckwit like you, what's wrong with
pointing and laughing?
Unfortunately, it's an all too common trait of
evolutionists. Hardly scientific, and very telling.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
11 Jan 2008 01:40:34 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:27:55 -0500, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:52:05 -0500, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:59:36 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
Babbliel:
...molecules-to-man evolution...
We already know that you are willfully braindead. No need to point it out
time and again.
Please ask yourself why you believe personal attacks qualify as
science.
Nobody ever said they did, Sport. However, since you wouldn't actually
know science if it crawled up your arse and lit a bonfire, and since
it's a complete waste of time to even attempt to have a serious
discussion with an ignorant, lying fuckwit like you,
what's wrong with
pointing and laughing?
So glad you asked! ^ ^
Normally, responsible, mature adults don't.
Unfortunately, it's an all too common trait of
evolutionists. Hardly scientific, and very telling.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
07 Jan 2008 07:09:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:52:05 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<jrb3o3hjiif4ilaisip4q6343l6ac2l9b0@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:59:36 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
Babbliel:
...molecules-to-man evolution...
We already know that you are willfully braindead. No need to point it out
time and again.
Please ask yourself why you believe personal attacks qualify as
science. Unfortunately, it's an all too common trait of
evolutionists. Hardly scientific, and very telling.
They don't, of course, but that does not mean that those who make false
claims about science have some sort of right to make those false claims
without having their false claims properly identified and clearly
labelled as lies.
What is telling is that you hide behind the label 'science' when you
haven't done anything that justifies that claim. Ask scientific
questions and you will get scientific answers. Ask religious questions
under the guise of science and people will point out that you didn't ask
anything scientific.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
07 Jan 2008 11:13:51 PM |
|
|
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolu
tion
Excerpt:
" Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let’s take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
So-called "biblical creationists" simply ignore God's commandment and
indulge in false witness a lot.
2. Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution? .. "
Natural selection is not a source of new genetic information. That is
caused by random mutations. In information theory applied to
communications, random thermal noise is the most information-rich content
there is. That's due to its inherent unpredictability. Evolution
proceeds by organisms producing vastly more "offspring" than replacement
numbers which are then filtered by natural selection allowing certain new
alleles to accumulate, while others become less ubiquitous.
Even us mammals reproduce vastly more than replacement numbers when you
count gametes. And you have to count gametes, as failure to conceive is
the first level of natural selection in mammalian reproduction.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wild Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
11 Jan 2008 11:56:41 AM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A1ED7F3D3ABAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolu
tion
Excerpt:
" Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let's take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
So-called "biblical creationists" simply ignore God's commandment and
indulge in false witness a lot.
2. Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution? .. "
Natural selection is not a source of new genetic information. That is
caused by random mutations. In information theory applied to
communications, random thermal noise is the most information-rich content
there is. That's due to its inherent unpredictability. Evolution
proceeds by organisms producing vastly more "offspring" than replacement
numbers which are then filtered by natural selection allowing certain new
alleles to accumulate, while others become less ubiquitous.
Even us mammals reproduce vastly more than replacement numbers when you
count gametes. And you have to count gametes, as failure to conceive is
the first level of natural selection in mammalian reproduction.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Say Gabriel, you got your butt kicked pretty royally over the Texas canyon
farce, and seem to be getting it kicked rather well on this thread too. Do
you suppose it's time for you to get a real education and dump the
creationist pseudoscience. The theory of Evolution doesn't necessarily
conflict with the idea of God creating the universe, but it does go against
a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is a creation fable similiar to
thousands of such stories world-wide. I can tell you that if you don't start
challenging your cherished beliefs and get some true science under your
belt, you're going to continue getting your butt kicked here.
Shalom,
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? |
11 Jan 2008 09:39:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 05:13:51 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ucg2o3p2nq8f0c51b4lp1fhmbnqmrnpdde@4ax.com:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolu
tion
Excerpt:
" Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let’s take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
So-called "biblical creationists" simply ignore God's commandment and
indulge in false witness a lot.
2. Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution? .. "
Natural selection is not a source of new genetic information.
Well then you need to talk to other macro evolutionists - this is
exactly what they often claim. But glad to see you realize it
too.
That is
caused by random mutations.
Actually, it's not. Scientists have already shown new genetic
information never gets created via mutations.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god
Excerpt:
Can Mutations Produce New Information?
Actually, scientists now know that the answer is no! Dr. Lee
Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and
communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this
abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book,
Not by Chance:
In information theory applied to
communications, random thermal noise is the most information-rich content
there is. That's due to its inherent unpredictability. Evolution
proceeds by organisms producing vastly more "offspring" than replacement
numbers which are then filtered by natural selection allowing certain new
alleles to accumulate, while others become less ubiquitous.
http://www.icr.org/article/3466/
"But natural selection only explains survival of the fittest; it
fails to explain arrival of the fittest. Natural selection, i.e.,
the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual
animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a
species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss,
not gain, of genetic information). Genetic drift, or gene
shuffling, only involves the shuffling of existing genes within a
kind. It does not explain the origination of any gene."
"Another textbook states: "New alleles |genes| originate only by
mutation, but natural selection only explains survival of the
fittest; it fails to explain arrival of the fittest. Natural
selection, i.e., | | |
