Nicola wrote:

There is no such thing as the human soul. Non-existent things do not
evolve, unless you include memetic evolution.

Bingo! Life couldn't have evolved from nothing. Thank you.

Jd

Nicola wrote:

There is no such thing as the human soul. Non-existent things do not
evolve, unless you include memetic evolution.

Bingo! Life couldn't have evolved from nothing. Thank you.

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from heaven.

Genesis 19:24 "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven"

The nature of things does not revolve around biological evolution.

It doesn't revolve around an old book written by numerous unreliable
people and revised almost beyond recognition either. You can quote
from your book as much as you like but it is not proof of anything.

Nicola wrote:

Being a Christian is no excuse for misrepresenting science or lying
about what evolution actually is. If you know that chance does not
explain variance in nature, why did you say that?

Why do lie by saying that I'm lying?
3 quick points:
1) if not chance then Intelligent Design makes sense.

2) human evolution has never been proven.

3) it makes no sense to believe human evolution over Intelligent
Design as set forth in the Bible.

What do you regard as being the tenets of Christianity? The bible
describes some horrifically selfish and unpleasant behaviour, and
condones it.

The Bible describes men as sinners and Christianity says they can be
forgiven of their sins.

Why are you relying on books that old? Why not bring yourself up to
date a little? Why not address modern evolutionary science rather than
something from the 19th century? It makes your position look rather
desperate.

19th century "old"?????

Heck, I quote the OT frequently

How is it that you say Darwin is old and outdated while I say the OT
isn't, and expect me to be the one apologizing for you?

Have you lost your mind?

According to yor historical scale, Dawkins will be old and out of date
in about 75 years.

Christianity is 20 CENTURIES old

Isn't it about time you bought a new cell phone?

Surely you don't expect to be able to accuse me of lying, condescend
upon my English language usage

and of reading old books..... without me doing something about it do you?

Nicola wrote:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:03:52 GMT, Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

Nicola wrote:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:27:02 GMT, Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <pb5cl29eujl5suhp8e3f3usd2j295ucjik@4ax.com> Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

{...}

The genetic code isn't random. It is determined by biochemistry.
Biochemistry is determined by the properties of atoms and molecules.
None of this is random, but there is no evidence that any of it was
designed by intelligence.

Wrong. It is utterly impossible for it to have occured by evolution.
For one, it would be impossible for the frog to see the eyes which
appear in less than one scecond on it's own butt. Much less have time
to "evolve" those spots into fake eyes because before 1 second was up,
it's predators would've made a meal of him.

Ah. And since it takes several weeks for an egg to become a
tadpole to become an adult -- but the frog needs to produce
these "eyes" in less than one second -- then obviously the frog
could not have developed these eyes while growing up; that would
take way to long.

So God must create them specially every time the frog needs them.


-- cary

I see you nothing about Biology. Tadpoles usually grow up in stagnant
type waters where hardly any fish or other enemies can survive.

Psalms 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the
firmament sheweth his handiwork."

The problem with atheism is that close minded atheists reject
diversity at the fundamental level, attributing variance in nature to
random mistakes. Meanwhile, their humanist counterparts demand that
they accept miscegenation under the banner of "diversity".

No biologist or atheist I have ever talked to believes that all
variance in nature is due to random mistakes. They tend to favour
Darwin's idea - that it had nothing to do with chance, and everything
to do with natural selection. Adaptation has nothing to do with
mistakes.


Nicola
www.banfaithschools.org.uk

Point taken. And welcome to the discussion. As you may have noticed I
give a Christian perspective on these things.

Being a Christian is no excuse for misrepresenting science or lying
about what evolution actually is. If you know that chance does not
explain variance in nature, why did you say that?

Why do lie by saying that I'm lying?

3 quick points:

1) if not chance then Intelligent Design makes sense.

2) human evolution has never been proven.

3) it makes no sense to believe human evolution over Intelligent
Design as set forth in the Bible.

To the root of the
issue here I must tell you that the Darwinian persepcective is totally
selfish, (which is diametrically opposed to the tennets of
Christianiy), in that "Natural Selection" seeks only to save
itself.....

"Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a
species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout
nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the
structures of others. But natural selection can and does often produce
structures for the direct injury of other animals, as we see in the
fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which
its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it
could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had
been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would
annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through
natural selection." - Charles Darwin "On the Origin of Species"
Chapter 6.

Why are you relying on books that old? Why not bring yourself up to
date a little? Why not address modern evolutionary science rather than
something from the 19th century? It makes your position look rather
desperate.

19th century "old"?????. Heck, I quote the OT frequently and it's far
older than Darwins writings.

How is it that you say Darwin is old and outdated while I say the OT
isn't, and expect me to be the one apologizing for you? Have you lost
your mind?

It is a common theist assumption that all biologists regard every word
Darwin wrote as being true. Science is not like religion. Every idea
is questioned, theories are revised as new evidence comes to light,
and knowledge moves on.The finer aspects of evolution are still
debated even though the basic facts are so well proven that nobody has
been able to seriously challenge them.

Darwin's brilliance was in identifying the driving forces of
evolution. He described processes which have turned out to be
supported by many other areas of modern science such as genetics,
archaeology and ethology. He provided the foundation for modern
biology, and on the basis of that we now have a science which has made
magnificent discoveries and refined Darwin's ideas.

Evolution is the only theory put forward so far which can explain the
evidence - such as the evolution of new species, which has been
documented by scientists relatively recently.

Try attacking the contents of Dawkins' books and your efforts might
carry more weight.

According to yor historical scale, Dawkins will be old and out of date
in about 75 years.

Christianity is 20 CENTURIES old and the OT Jewish books from which it
draws proofs is far older than that.

Isn't it about time you bought a new cell phone?

But mind you, I'm all for free speech and will not condescend upon you
for expressing yourself but will at a moments notice..... defend
myself using whatever means I deem necessary.

What exactly do you mean by that? Quite apart from the atrocious
English it sounds like a strange and inappropriate threat.

How is self defense a threat?

Surely you don't expect to be able to accuse me of lying, condescend
upon my English language usage and of reading old books..... without
me doing something about it do you?

Are you a feminist who doesn't trust her man to balance the checkbook?

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

I hate to disappoint you but I have proof that evolution is a hoax.

Nope.

And by that I mean that if I can prove evolution is impossible in even
1 species that exist today, (not counting humans which we already know
that no prof exists) it shreds the entire theory. Agree?

If you could prove that evolution is *impossible* you might have
something. But you have no such proof.

So here goes (whether you agree or not). The species I've chosen is
the South American false-eyed frog.

Here is a brief description:

"The South American false-eyed frog is an interesting creature.
Generally about 3 inches long, it is brown, black, blue, gray, and
white! Drops of each color are on its skin, and it can suddenly change
from one of these colors to the others, simply by masking out certain
color spots."

"The change-color effect that this frog regularly produces is totally
amazing, and completely unexplainable by any kind of evolutionary
theory.

Your evidence that it is unexplainable is ...

It seems perfectly explainable to me, and to scientists. Those frogs
that have certain coloration survive longer than those with other
coloration, so they reproduce more, and thus more frogs appear with
that coloration.

http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/pretend.html

The frog will be sitting in the jungle minding its own
business, when an enemy, such as a snake or rat, will come along.
Instantly, that frog will jump and turn around, so that its back is
now facing the intruder. In that same instance, the frog changed its
colors!"

"Now the enemy sees a big head, nose, mouth, and two black and blues
eyes! To the side of the fake face, there appear long claws! These are
the frog’s toes! As the frog tucks his legs to the sides of his body,
he purposely lifts up two toes from each hind foot—and curls them out,
so they will look like a couple of weird hooks."

"And the frog does all this in one second!"

Here's a picture.

http://animalpicturesarchive.com/ArchOLD-4/1126603355.jpg

Now why couldn't such coloration and behavior have evolved?

Because it is impossible which proves my point.

In "one second" all evolutionary trails and errors would've been in vain.

Think before you hastily reply Bob.

"At this, the predator leaves, feeling quite defeated. But that which
it left behind is a tasty, defenseless, weak frog which can turn
around quickly, but cannot hop away very fast."

"All scientists will agree that this frog does not do these things
because of intelligence, but as a result of coding within its DNA.

OK.

How did that coding get there?

It evolved.

It requires intelligence to produce a code.

That is what you are trying to prove. And you can't.

Sure I did. Re-read the above.

Random codes are meaningless

The genetic code isn't random. It is determined by biochemistry.
Biochemistry is determined by the properties of atoms and molecules.
None of this is random, but there is no evidence that any of it was
designed by intelligence.

Wrong.

It is utterly impossible for it to have occured by evolution.

For one, it would be impossible for the frog to see the eyes which
appear in less than one scecond on it's own butt.

Much less have time to "evolve" those spots into fake eyes because before 1 second was up,
it's predators would've made a meal of him.

And secondarily, it isn't logical to assume that the false eyed frog
has enough intelligence to create eyes on it's own butt for the
purpose of frightening off rats and snakes.

Therefore it's up to you to prove that the false-eyed frog has a
rather high I.Q.

and designs never arise though random activity.

Baloney.

Roll a pair of dice lots of times, and count the frequencies. Draw a
graph. You will get a pattern that peaks in the middle at 7, and
dwindles off towards low points at 2 and 12. Voila! A pattern
generated by randomness.

Nonsense unless you have proof that the false-eyed frog has an I.Q.
equal to that of yourself.

Genetic codes within
living creatures are the most complicated of humans to devise and
fabricate."

That sentence makes no sense, and is false.

The genetic code is actually quite simple. It is the number of data
elements, billions, that makes the human genome so complex.

"The facts are clear.

Maybe, but they aren't the facts that you need.

God made that frog,

No evidence of that.

Since I've proven that the evolutionary route is utterly impossible,

the Creation version is a certainty.

and He made all other living creatures also.

No evidence of that.

As I said, if I prove ToE false wrt to a sigle species, it's false for
'em all.

Where do you find such crappy arguments? The trouble is, you fail to
exercise the slightest evidence of critical thinking (indeed you fail
to exercise evidence of thinking at all).

Now you're reverse projecting. "Projecting" your own shortcomings on
your opponent, which temporarily boosts your ego.

And that's almost an abomination. At the least it's a grievous sin for
someone such as yourself who claims to be a christian. Afterall,
self-worship (which is the cause for your "projections") is a form of
idolitry.

You've been exposed by the false-eyed frog. A blue eyed frog that has
no idea wrt the fake eyes on it's back...

"Now the enemy sees a big head, nose, mouth, and two black and blues
eyes!"

"All this looks so real—with even a black pupil with a blue iris
around it. Yet the frog cannot see any of this, for the very highly
intelligently designed markings are on its back!"