| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2003 10:36:40 AM |
| Object: |
Time plus Chance |
Time plus Chance
Addressing the idea of evolutionism that time plus chance could have
created life, Sir Fred Hoyle(who was not a Christian) said,
"Now imangine 10 to the 50th power blind persons(thats 100,000
billion,billion,billion,billion people-standing shoulder to shoulder, they
would more than fill our entire planatary system) each with a scrambled
Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously
arriving at the solved form. You have the chance of arriving by random
shuffling(random variation) of just one of many biopolymers on which life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating
program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in the primordial
soup here on Earth is evidently NONSENCE OF A HIGH ORDER."
The opinion of evolution is only a great leap of faith in the false gurus
who have been proven wrong over and over again but continue to prey on the
gullible and ignorant.
.
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
24 Sep 2003 02:58:51 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2309030836400001@pm4-03.kalama.com...
Time plus Chance
Addressing the idea of evolutionism that time plus chance could have
created life, Sir Fred Hoyle(who was not a Christian) said,
"Now imangine 10 to the 50th power blind persons(thats 100,000
billion,billion,billion,billion people-standing shoulder to shoulder, they
would more than fill our entire planatary system) each with a scrambled
Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously
arriving at the solved form. You have the chance of arriving by random
shuffling(random variation) of just one of many biopolymers on which life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating
program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in the primordial
soup here on Earth is evidently NONSENCE OF A HIGH ORDER."
The opinion of evolution is only a great leap of faith in the false gurus
who have been proven wrong over and over again but continue to prey on the
gullible and ignorant.
Actually the odds are one to one. Unless you believe in panspermia like
Hoyle did.
Evolution is a fact.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the most verified of any major scientific
theory.
At least 99 percent of all biologist believe Darwin's theory to be correct.
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
Lane
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
(Ashley Montague)
.
|
|
|
| User: "onegod" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
24 Sep 2003 05:44:04 PM |
|
|
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Hmcb.9133$Of2.351180@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2309030836400001@pm4-03.kalama.com...
Time plus Chance
Addressing the idea of evolutionism that time plus chance could have
created life, Sir Fred Hoyle(who was not a Christian) said,
"Now imangine 10 to the 50th power blind persons(thats 100,000
billion,billion,billion,billion people-standing shoulder to shoulder,
they
would more than fill our entire planatary system) each with a scrambled
Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously
arriving at the solved form. You have the chance of arriving by random
shuffling(random variation) of just one of many biopolymers on which
life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating
program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in the primordial
soup here on Earth is evidently NONSENCE OF A HIGH ORDER."
The opinion of evolution is only a great leap of faith in the false
gurus
who have been proven wrong over and over again but continue to prey on
the
gullible and ignorant.
Actually the odds are one to one. Unless you believe in panspermia like
Hoyle did.
Evolution is a fact.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the most verified of any major scientific
theory.
At least 99 percent of all biologist believe Darwin's theory to be
correct.
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
Statistics are misleading at best. I suspect that out of 99% that believe
in evolution, 50% probably believe in god of some sort and of those that
does not believe, I suspect half are agnostic.
And highest test is .... do you believe in "WILL".... Meaning... genes and
body (hardware) and life experience (adaptive software). In other words,
your actions are predetermined and things are going to be based on molecule
and electron reaction in your body....
In other words, your existance is not much different than existance of
dust....
And even that tend to be religious lol.... From dust to dust lol.
Lane
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
(Ashley Montague)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
30 Sep 2003 11:25:35 PM |
|
|
"onegod" <spamone@msn.com> wrote in message
news:U6pcb.3034$T46.49@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Hmcb.9133$Of2.351180@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2309030836400001@pm4-03.kalama.com...
Time plus Chance
Addressing the idea of evolutionism that time plus chance could have
created life, Sir Fred Hoyle(who was not a Christian) said,
"Now imangine 10 to the 50th power blind persons(thats 100,000
billion,billion,billion,billion people-standing shoulder to shoulder,
they
would more than fill our entire planatary system) each with a
scrambled
Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all
simultaneously
arriving at the solved form. You have the chance of arriving by
random
shuffling(random variation) of just one of many biopolymers on which
life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating
program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in the
primordial
soup here on Earth is evidently NONSENCE OF A HIGH ORDER."
The opinion of evolution is only a great leap of faith in the false
gurus
who have been proven wrong over and over again but continue to prey on
the
gullible and ignorant.
Actually the odds are one to one. Unless you believe in panspermia like
Hoyle did.
Evolution is a fact.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the most verified of any major
scientific
theory.
At least 99 percent of all biologist believe Darwin's theory to be
correct.
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
Statistics are misleading at best. I suspect that out of 99% that believe
in evolution, 50% probably believe in god of some sort and of those that
does not believe, I suspect half are agnostic.
Doesn't matter if they believe in turtles all the way up. As lond as they
believes in evolution the stat is true.
And highest test is .... do you believe in "WILL".... Meaning... genes
and
body (hardware) and life experience (adaptive software). In other words,
your actions are predetermined and things are going to be based on
molecule
and electron reaction in your body....
In other words, your existance is not much different than existance of
dust....
And even that tend to be religious lol.... From dust to dust lol.
But you can't verify any of that, there is perhaps more to be
discovered. Like Quantum Mech.
Lane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
29 Sep 2003 09:52:59 PM |
|
|
In article <%Hmcb.9133$Of2.351180@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2309030836400001@pm4-03.kalama.com...
Time plus Chance
Addressing the idea of evolutionism that time plus chance could have
created life, Sir Fred Hoyle(who was not a Christian) said,
"Now imangine 10 to the 50th power blind persons(thats 100,000
billion,billion,billion,billion people-standing shoulder to shoulder, they
would more than fill our entire planatary system) each with a scrambled
Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously
arriving at the solved form. You have the chance of arriving by random
shuffling(random variation) of just one of many biopolymers on which life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating
program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in the primordial
soup here on Earth is evidently NONSENCE OF A HIGH ORDER."
The opinion of evolution is only a great leap of faith in the false gurus
who have been proven wrong over and over again but continue to prey on the
gullible and ignorant.
Actually the odds are one to one. Unless you believe in panspermia like
Hoyle did.
Evolution is a fact.
It is not a fact that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common ancestor.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the most verified of any major scientific
theory.
What a joke, did you go to shcool to learn humour? Darwins theory, slow
gradual change from tomatoe plant to giraffe was rejected by the evidence
decades ago.
At least 99 percent of all biologist believe Darwin's theory to be correct.
I doubt it, but then you haven't proven it either.
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
the time god and the chance god are dying, along with their magical
primordial fairy tale pool where non living matter arranges itself in
complex patterns and begins to live by magical fairy dust. If one
believes in that mythology, he is not very scientific.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
30 Sep 2003 07:03:35 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2909032253010001@user-2ivel9t.dialup.mindspring.com...
In article <%Hmcb.9133$Of2.351180@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2309030836400001@pm4-03.kalama.com...
Time plus Chance
Addressing the idea of evolutionism that time plus chance could have
created life, Sir Fred Hoyle(who was not a Christian) said,
"Now imangine 10 to the 50th power blind persons(thats 100,000
billion,billion,billion,billion people-standing shoulder to shoulder,
they
would more than fill our entire planatary system) each with a
scrambled
Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all
simultaneously
arriving at the solved form. You have the chance of arriving by
random
shuffling(random variation) of just one of many biopolymers on which
life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating
program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in the
primordial
soup here on Earth is evidently NONSENCE OF A HIGH ORDER."
The opinion of evolution is only a great leap of faith in the false
gurus
who have been proven wrong over and over again but continue to prey on
the
gullible and ignorant.
Actually the odds are one to one. Unless you believe in panspermia like
Hoyle did.
Evolution is a fact.
It is not a fact that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common ancestor.
Please present your scientific evidence. Do humans and apes have a common
ancestor? Please provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the most verified of any major
scientific
theory.
What a joke, did you go to shcool to learn humour? Darwins theory, slow
gradual change from tomatoe plant to giraffe was rejected by the evidence
decades ago.
That is not a part of the theory, as you well know. Are you trying to
mislead people on purpose?
At least 99 percent of all biologist believe Darwin's theory to be
correct.
I doubt it, but then you haven't proven it either.
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
the time god and the chance god are dying, along with their magical
primordial fairy tale pool where non living matter arranges itself in
complex patterns and begins to live by magical fairy dust. If one
believes in that mythology, he is not very scientific.
You have posted a dozen times this AM. You have yet to provide any
scientific evidence for any of your assertions. Please provide that
scientific evidence now.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
01 Oct 2003 06:48:17 PM |
|
|
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2909032253010001@user-2ivel9t.dialup.mindspring.com...
In article <%Hmcb.9133$Of2.351180@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2309030836400001@pm4-03.kalama.com...
Time plus Chance
Addressing the idea of evolutionism that time plus chance could have
created life, Sir Fred Hoyle(who was not a Christian) said,
"Now imangine 10 to the 50th power blind persons(thats 100,000
billion,billion,billion,billion people-standing shoulder to shoulder,
they
would more than fill our entire planatary system) each with a
scrambled
Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all
simultaneously
arriving at the solved form. You have the chance of arriving by
random
shuffling(random variation) of just one of many biopolymers on which
life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating
program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in the
primordial
soup here on Earth is evidently NONSENCE OF A HIGH ORDER."
The opinion of evolution is only a great leap of faith in the false
gurus
who have been proven wrong over and over again but continue to prey on
the
gullible and ignorant.
Actually the odds are one to one. Unless you believe in panspermia like
Hoyle did.
Evolution is a fact.
It is not a fact that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common ancestor.
Please present your scientific evidence. Do humans and apes have a common
ancestor? Please provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
No scientific evidence that humans and apes have a common ancestor.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the most verified of any major
scientific
theory.
What a joke, did you go to shcool to learn humour? Darwins theory, slow
gradual change from tomatoe plant to giraffe was rejected by the evidence
decades ago.
That is not a part of the theory, as you well know. Are you trying to
mislead people on purpose?
Tee hee hee, are you saying that tomatoe plants and giraffes do not have a
common ancestor? Be careful not to embarrass yourself in front of the
evolution Nazi's.
At least 99 percent of all biologist believe Darwin's theory to be
correct.
I doubt it, but then you haven't proven it either.
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
the time god and the chance god are dying, along with their magical
primordial fairy tale pool where non living matter arranges itself in
complex patterns and begins to live by magical fairy dust. If one
believes in that mythology, he is not very scientific.
You have posted a dozen times this AM. You have yet to provide any
scientific evidence for any of your assertions. Please provide that
scientific evidence now.
Tee hee hee, if someone would post some scientific evidence that tomatoe
plants and giraffes have a common ancestor, we could use the same evidence
to conclude that they might have a common creator.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
01 Oct 2003 08:28:28 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0110031948240001@sdn-ap-018dcwashp0200.dialsprint.net...
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2909032253010001@user-2ivel9t.dialup.mindspring.com...
<snip>
What a joke, did you go to shcool to learn humour? Darwins theory,
slow
gradual change from tomatoe plant to giraffe was rejected by the
evidence
decades ago.
That is not a part of the theory, as you well know. Are you trying to
mislead people on purpose?
Tee hee hee, are you saying that tomatoe plants and giraffes do not have a
common ancestor? Be careful not to embarrass yourself in front of the
evolution Nazi's.
You have obviously conflated having a common ancestor with being in a
line-of-descent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 09:41:07 AM |
|
|
In article <mbLeb.341$3a6.95205485@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0110031948240001@sdn-ap-018dcwashp0200.dialsprint.net...
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2909032253010001@user-2ivel9t.dialup.mindspring.com...
<snip>
What a joke, did you go to shcool to learn humour? Darwins theory,
slow
gradual change from tomatoe plant to giraffe was rejected by the
evidence
decades ago.
That is not a part of the theory, as you well know. Are you trying to
mislead people on purpose?
Tee hee hee, are you saying that tomatoe plants and giraffes do not have a
common ancestor? Be careful not to embarrass yourself in front of the
evolution Nazi's.
You have obviously conflated having a common ancestor with being in a
line-of-descent.
IOW, there is no common ancestor in the line of descent, which, of course,
means that there is no line of descent.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 11:12:15 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031041160001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0122.dialsprint.net...
In article <mbLeb.341$3a6.95205485@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0110031948240001@sdn-ap-018dcwashp0200.dialsprint.net...
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2909032253010001@user-2ivel9t.dialup.mindspring.com...
<snip>
What a joke, did you go to shcool to learn humour? Darwins
theory,
slow
gradual change from tomatoe plant to giraffe was rejected by the
evidence
decades ago.
That is not a part of the theory, as you well know. Are you trying
to
mislead people on purpose?
Tee hee hee, are you saying that tomatoe plants and giraffes do not
have a
common ancestor? Be careful not to embarrass yourself in front of the
evolution Nazi's.
You have obviously conflated having a common ancestor with being in a
line-of-descent.
Burt: IOW, there is no common ancestor in the line of descent, which, of
course,
means that there is no line of descent.
Tom: Tee hee hee, all that follows "IOW" is a lie :-).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 12:23:50 PM |
|
|
In (followup set to) alt.talk.creationism,
(Michael) wrote in
<mikeburt-0210031041160001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0122.dialsprint.net>:
In article <mbLeb.341$3a6.95205485@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0110031948240001@sdn-ap-018dcwashp0200.dialsprint.net...
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Michael" < > wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2909032253010001@user-2ivel9t.dialup.mindspring.com...
<snip>
What a joke, did you go to shcool to learn humour? Darwins theory, slow
gradual change from tomatoe plant to giraffe was rejected by the evidence
decades ago.
That is not a part of the theory, as you well know. Are you trying to
mislead people on purpose?
Tee hee hee, are you saying that tomatoe plants and giraffes do not have a
common ancestor? Be careful not to embarrass yourself in front of the
evolution Nazi's.
You have obviously conflated having a common ancestor with being in a
line-of-descent.
IOW, there is no common ancestor in the line of descent, which, of course,
means that there is no line of descent.
No. Once again you restate something inaccurately. I realize that you
are far to proud of your ignorance to even try to follow this, but let
me explain to anyone in the audience who doesn't understand it, but
wants to.
A common ancestor is the point at which two different lines of descent
had divided. For tomato plants and giraffes, this would have been a
single cell eukaryote. Tomatoes are not in the line of descent of
giraffes, nor are giraffes in the line of descent with tomatoes, but
that does not mean that they do not share a common ancestor. You share a
common ancestor with your cousin, but you are not in the line of descent
of your cousin.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
01 Oct 2003 07:30:28 PM |
|
|
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0110031948240001@sdn-ap-018dcwashp0200.dialsprint.net...
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
[...]
Please present your scientific evidence. Do humans and apes have a
common ancestor? Please provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
No scientific evidence that humans and apes have a common ancestor.
No scientific evidence that the Bible is true. See, I can play the
assertion game just like you can; if you expect to be taken seriously, you
had better be able to produce some hard evidence.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the most verified of any major
scientific theory.
What a joke, did you go to shcool to learn humour? Darwins theory,
slow gradual change from tomatoe plant to giraffe was rejected by the
evidence decades ago.
That is not a part of the theory, as you well know. Are you trying to
mislead people on purpose?
Tee hee hee, are you saying that tomatoe plants and giraffes do not have
a common ancestor? Be careful not to embarrass yourself in front of the
evolution Nazi's.
That's a rather ironic statement considering the *real* Nazis wore belt
buckles that said "God With Us" and justified their racism by public
appeals to Christianity. Here's an example of that:
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It
points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few
followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to
fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but
as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage
which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the
scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How
terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.
Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more
profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to
shed his blood upon the Cross.
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the
duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have
also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work
and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for
their wages wretchedness and misery.
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and
look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but
a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are
plundered and exploited."
--Adolf Hitler, from a speech delivered April 12, 1922 and published in "My
New Order"; full text online at
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html
[...]
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal reviewed
by a self admiration society of evolutionists.
At least evolutionary scientists, unlike creationists, don't sign sworn
statements promising that they will ignore any evidence that interferes
with their predetermined faith conclusion.
"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field,
including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
Scriptural record."
--from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
the time god and the chance god are dying, along with their magical
primordial fairy tale pool where non living matter arranges itself in
complex patterns and begins to live by magical fairy dust. If one
believes in that mythology, he is not very scientific.
You have posted a dozen times this AM. You have yet to provide any
scientific evidence for any of your assertions. Please provide that
scientific evidence now.
Tee hee hee, if someone would post some scientific evidence that tomatoe
plants and giraffes have a common ancestor, we could use the same
evidence to conclude that they might have a common creator.
False. One kind of evidence that points to common descent and *away* from
common design is the existence of shared genetic errors - scrambled bits of
DNA that do not serve a protein-creating function. There is no creationist
explanation for why unrelated species would independently accumulate the
exact same errors at the exact same locations in their genome; of course,
the evolutionary explanation is that these errors occurred in the common
ancestor of those species and were inherited by all the daughter species in
its line of descent.
Here are some shared genetic errors within the artiodactyl (hoofed mammal)
family:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/nikaido.html
And I know you don't *really* care about tomato plants or giraffes, so
let's get to the heart of the matter - here are some genetic errors shared
between humans, apes and monkeys:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
01 Oct 2003 10:48:59 PM |
|
|
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 06:46:19 AM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3F7B9FFB.1030402@psalmweaver.com...
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is
no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is
true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced
by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest
is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal reviewed
by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
Darwin and Wallace presented their paper before the Linnean Society, a
leading scientific forum for discussions on biological subjects. You can
read the original presentation here. As read before the Linnean Society July
1st ,1858 and published in their proceedings Vol 3 1858. pp 45-62.
http://tinyurl.com/pfn6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 09:45:45 AM |
|
|
In article <BeUeb.413$F_4.154567811@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3F7B9FFB.1030402@psalmweaver.com...
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is
no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is
true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced
by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest
is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal reviewed
by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
Darwin and Wallace presented their paper before the Linnean Society, a
leading scientific forum for discussions on biological subjects. You can
read the original presentation here. As read before the Linnean Society July
1st ,1858 and published in their proceedings Vol 3 1858. pp 45-62.
http://tinyurl.com/pfn6
Tee hee hee, Wallace received the theory from a 'spirit' in the wilds of
Boreno. when Darwin learned that Wallace was headed back from the land of
the spirits, he rushed to publish his grandfathers religious hypothesis
before Wallace could get back.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 11:17:00 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031045540001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0122.dialsprint.net...
In article <BeUeb.413$F_4.154567811@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3F7B9FFB.1030402@psalmweaver.com...
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there
is
no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is
true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been
replaced
by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The
latest
is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory
than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even
closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal
reviewed
by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
Darwin and Wallace presented their paper before the Linnean Society, a
leading scientific forum for discussions on biological subjects. You can
read the original presentation here. As read before the Linnean Society
July
1st ,1858 and published in their proceedings Vol 3 1858. pp 45-62.
http://tinyurl.com/pfn6
Tee hee hee, Wallace received the theory from a 'spirit' in the wilds of
Boreno. when Darwin learned that Wallace was headed back from the land of
the spirits, he rushed to publish his grandfathers religious hypothesis
before Wallace could get back.
Tom: Tee hee hee, you're a damn liar, Burt. Do you enjoy being a liar? I
guess the other ignorant fools can send you congratulatory "emials" on your
lies but they would be an affront to the Jesus you claim to serve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 04:29:00 PM |
|
|
In article <vnojruqienvvbc@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031045540001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0122.dialsprint.net...
In article <BeUeb.413$F_4.154567811@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3F7B9FFB.1030402@psalmweaver.com...
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there
is
no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is
true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been
replaced
by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The
latest
is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory
than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even
closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal
reviewed
by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
Darwin and Wallace presented their paper before the Linnean Society, a
leading scientific forum for discussions on biological subjects. You can
read the original presentation here. As read before the Linnean Society
July
1st ,1858 and published in their proceedings Vol 3 1858. pp 45-62.
http://tinyurl.com/pfn6
Tee hee hee, Wallace received the theory from a 'spirit' in the wilds of
Boreno. when Darwin learned that Wallace was headed back from the land of
the spirits, he rushed to publish his grandfathers religious hypothesis
before Wallace could get back.
Tom: Tee hee hee, you're a damn liar, Burt. Do you enjoy being a liar? I
guess the other ignorant fools can send you congratulatory "emials" on your
lies but they would be an affront to the Jesus you claim to serve.
Tee hee hee, God, the Creator will judge, not Tom. BTW, you may want to
start working on the opening remarks.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 06:10:22 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031729090001@sdn-ap-006dcwashp0075.dialsprint.net...
In article <vnojruqienvvbc@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031045540001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0122.dialsprint.net...
In article <BeUeb.413$F_4.154567811@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
message
news:3F7B9FFB.1030402@psalmweaver.com...
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and
there
is
no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which
is
true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been
replaced
by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The
latest
is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation
theory
than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then
PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even
closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal
reviewed
by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would
have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
Darwin and Wallace presented their paper before the Linnean Society,
a
leading scientific forum for discussions on biological subjects. You
can
read the original presentation here. As read before the Linnean
Society
July
1st ,1858 and published in their proceedings Vol 3 1858. pp 45-62.
http://tinyurl.com/pfn6
Tee hee hee, Wallace received the theory from a 'spirit' in the wilds
of
Boreno. when Darwin learned that Wallace was headed back from the
land of
the spirits, he rushed to publish his grandfathers religious
hypothesis
before Wallace could get back.
Tom: Tee hee hee, you're a damn liar, Burt. Do you enjoy being a liar? I
guess the other ignorant fools can send you congratulatory "emials" on
your
lies but they would be an affront to the Jesus you claim to serve.
Burt: Tee hee hee, God, the Creator will judge, not Tom. BTW, you may want
to
start working on the opening remarks.
Tom: Tee hee hee, yeah Burt, I lose a lot of sleep worrying about what I
will say to "god". I'll let you worry about that and from what I remember
Jesus didn't like liars such as you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 06:22:39 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031729090001@sdn-ap-006dcwashp0075.dialsprint.net...
In article <vnojruqienvvbc@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031045540001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0122.dialsprint.net...
In article <BeUeb.413$F_4.154567811@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
message
news:3F7B9FFB.1030402@psalmweaver.com...
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and
there
is
no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which
is
true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been
replaced
by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The
latest
is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation
theory
than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then
PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even
closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal
reviewed
by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would
have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
Darwin and Wallace presented their paper before the Linnean Society,
a
leading scientific forum for discussions on biological subjects. You
can
read the original presentation here. As read before the Linnean
Society
July
1st ,1858 and published in their proceedings Vol 3 1858. pp 45-62.
http://tinyurl.com/pfn6
Tee hee hee, Wallace received the theory from a 'spirit' in the wilds
of
Boreno. when Darwin learned that Wallace was headed back from the
land of
the spirits, he rushed to publish his grandfathers religious
hypothesis
before Wallace could get back.
Tom: Tee hee hee, you're a damn liar, Burt. Do you enjoy being a liar? I
guess the other ignorant fools can send you congratulatory "emials" on
your
lies but they would be an affront to the Jesus you claim to serve.
Tee hee hee, God, the Creator will judge, not Tom. BTW, you may want to
start working on the opening remarks.
And you. There is none righteous, no not one.
Your judgements (e.g.: judging most of the Christians in the world as
adherants of the Anti-Christ) will also be judged. You appear not to care.
Why?
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "HoundDog" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 07:34:46 PM |
|
|
(Michael) wrote in message news:
Tee hee hee, Wallace received the theory from a 'spirit' in the wilds of
Boreno. when Darwin learned that Wallace was headed back from the land of
the spirits, he rushed to publish his grandfathers religious hypothesis
before Wallace could get back.
Hey Mikey,
You be usin dat "tee hee" phrase agin aint ya, well me and de boys wuz
workin in
the lab late one night (extra credit if you guess what song inspired
that phrase, hint the holiday it gets played alot during is close at
hand) and dun figured out why you goes "tee hee" so much.
Our hypothesis is that you are experiencing a "Fundie Orgasm". We
figure since you gets so excited reading something you are prepared to
answer with a standard fundie comeback that you learnt at them
meetins, y'all has one of dem orgasims and cries out, "te hee" rather
than
screaming or groaning like normal folks do. Do you have a smoke after
too? How far does yur seed go?
Like in de OT, dey say "know" when dey mean havin sex, like in
intercourse or like dat 4 letter word, f...
So I got a sayin for yu:
Go know yourself, in the biblical manner.
HD
today's sayin from de bible:
" Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve
them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
01 Oct 2003 11:54:35 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Alan
Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
To the extent that peer review existed at the time Darwin's work
was subjected to peer review. Darwin sent copies around to the
leading scientists of the time to get their response. Do you have
another idea?
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about the subject?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 09:44:06 AM |
|
|
In article <tnbnnvkllo59aukti6kbairtdk02sondti@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Alan
Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
To the extent that peer review existed at the time Darwin's work
was subjected to peer review. Darwin sent copies around to the
leading scientists of the time to get their response. Do you have
another idea?
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about the subject?
No, unless they are closed minded as to alternative hypothesis, in which
case they are not peer reviewing but peer censoring. that is not
scientific, but meets all of the definations of a cult. Cults like to
control peer review, as they do in the field of evolution.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 02:14:35 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael):
In article <tnbnnvkllo59aukti6kbairtdk02sondti@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Alan
Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
To the extent that peer review existed at the time Darwin's work
was subjected to peer review. Darwin sent copies around to the
leading scientists of the time to get their response. Do you have
another idea?
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about the subject?
No, unless they are closed minded as to alternative hypothesis, in which
case they are not peer reviewing but peer censoring. that is not
scientific, but meets all of the definations of a cult. Cults like to
control peer review, as they do in the field of evolution.
Ok, do you know of any such publications? Does _Nature_ or
_Science_ censor? You have made an accusation, can you back it up
with any evidence? If not, aren't you sinning by bearing false
witness?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 04:46:12 PM |
|
|
In article <u4uonvori6vk38cu8utfqlnb2n9klujmft@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael):
In article <tnbnnvkllo59aukti6kbairtdk02sondti@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Alan
Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and
there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which
is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been
replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The
latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal
reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
To the extent that peer review existed at the time Darwin's work
was subjected to peer review. Darwin sent copies around to the
leading scientists of the time to get their response. Do you have
another idea?
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about the subject?
No, unless they are closed minded as to alternative hypothesis, in which
case they are not peer reviewing but peer censoring. that is not
scientific, but meets all of the definations of a cult. Cults like to
control peer review, as they do in the field of evolution.
Ok, do you know of any such publications? Does _Nature_ or
_Science_ censor? You have made an accusation, can you back it up
with any evidence? If not, aren't you sinning by bearing false
witness?
Tee hee hee, I offer all of the articles from Nature and Science that
discuss the hypothesis that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common
Creator as follows:
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 06:12:52 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031746220001@sdn-ap-006dcwashp0075.dialsprint.net...
<snipped>
Tee hee hee, I offer all of the articles from Nature and Science that
discuss the hypothesis that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common
Creator as follows:
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
You forgot to include the evidence.
We look at the history of life. For hundreds of millions of years, we have a
reasonable picture of how life evolved, and the mechanism of that change.
However the most distant the past, that is, the closer to the beginning of
life, our observations are less certain. However, we can see a convergence
as we go into the past (the nested hierarchy of life), to a beginning with
some sort of primitive cell, and perhaps replicating biochemistry. As our
science had become more advanced, we peer farther and father into the past.
So far, every discovery confirms abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not considered fact, unlike evolution which can be directly
observed. However, most scientists are certain that abiogenesis will
continue to be fertile ground for research.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 06:19:24 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031746220001@sdn-ap-006dcwashp0075.dialsprint.net...
In article <u4uonvori6vk38cu8utfqlnb2n9klujmft@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael):
In article <tnbnnvkllo59aukti6kbairtdk02sondti@4ax.com>, Matt
Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Alan
Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and
there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which
is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been
replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The
latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation
theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE
is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even
closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal
reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would
have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
To the extent that peer review existed at the time Darwin's work
was subjected to peer review. Darwin sent copies around to the
leading scientists of the time to get their response. Do you have
another idea?
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about the subject?
No, unless they are closed minded as to alternative hypothesis, in
which
case they are not peer reviewing but peer censoring. that is not
scientific, but meets all of the definations of a cult. Cults like to
control peer review, as they do in the field of evolution.
Ok, do you know of any such publications? Does _Nature_ or
_Science_ censor? You have made an accusation, can you back it up
with any evidence? If not, aren't you sinning by bearing false
witness?
Tee hee hee, I offer all of the articles from Nature and Science that
discuss the hypothesis that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common
Creator as follows:
IOW, yes, he is bearing false witness. And no, he can't back up his
accusation with any evidence.
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Reichenbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 05:14:58 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031746220001@sdn-ap-006dcwashp0075.dialsprint.net...
In article <u4uonvori6vk38cu8utfqlnb2n9klujmft@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael):
In article <tnbnnvkllo59aukti6kbairtdk02sondti@4ax.com>, Matt
Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Alan
Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and
there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which
is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been
replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The
latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation
theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE
is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even
closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal
reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would
have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
To the extent that peer review existed at the time Darwin's work
was subjected to peer review. Darwin sent copies around to the
leading scientists of the time to get their response. Do you have
another idea?
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about the subject?
No, unless they are closed minded as to alternative hypothesis, in
which
case they are not peer reviewing but peer censoring. that is not
scientific, but meets all of the definations of a cult. Cults like to
control peer review, as they do in the field of evolution.
Ok, do you know of any such publications? Does _Nature_ or
_Science_ censor? You have made an accusation, can you back it up
with any evidence? If not, aren't you sinning by bearing false
witness?
Tee hee hee, I offer all of the articles from Nature and Science that
discuss the hypothesis that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common
Creator as follows:
Tee hee!. No evolutionary biologist ever asserted that any living mammal
evolved from any living plant, or from any
plant, period. You erected an obvious strawman with the expectation that in
cutting it down, others as ignorant as you might be persuaded that there was
some fault in the theory.
Frank
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 10:17:17 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael):
In article <u4uonvori6vk38cu8utfqlnb2n9klujmft@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael):
In article <tnbnnvkllo59aukti6kbairtdk02sondti@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Alan
Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com>:
Michael wrote:
In article <Nieeb.89$7R2.21736542@twister2.starband.net>, "Zachriel"
<angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
There are libraries full of evidence for Darwin's Theory and
there is no
evidence for the story of creation. Take your pick as to which
is true.
We have, Darwin's theory was rejected decades ago having been
replaced by
several suceeding theories of evolution likewise rejected. The
latest is
Punctuated Equilibrium, with is however, closer to Creation theory than
any previous theory of evolution. We have no doubt that then PE is
replaced by a better hypothesis of evolution, it will be even closer to
Creation theory.
Please provide peer-reviewed studies of your assertions.
Tee hee hee, fundie evolutionists mantra # 55 demand a journal
reviewed by
a self admiration society of evolutionists.
I suppose were they alive in the late 1800's our opponents would have
rejected Darwin's theory, since he published it in a book, not a
peer-reviewed journal.
To the extent that peer review existed at the time Darwin's work
was subjected to peer review. Darwin sent copies around to the
leading scientists of the time to get their response. Do you have
another idea?
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about the subject?
No, unless they are closed minded as to alternative hypothesis, in which
case they are not peer reviewing but peer censoring. that is not
scientific, but meets all of the definations of a cult. Cults like to
control peer review, as they do in the field of evolution.
Ok, do you know of any such publications? Does _Nature_ or
_Science_ censor? You have made an accusation, can you back it up
with any evidence? If not, aren't you sinning by bearing false
witness?
Tee hee hee, I offer all of the articles from Nature and Science that
discuss the hypothesis that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common
Creator as follows:
I gather that you are not up to supporting your claim. You have
chosen to try to change the subject.
Ok, so does any Creationist out there wish to try to support what
Mike has said? (The comment about censorship, not his new claim.)
Anyone want to support Mike? Or do you all realize that he is too
dishonest to stand with?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 12:37:47 PM |
|
|
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031044150001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0122.dialsprint.net...
In article <tnbnnvkllo59aukti6kbairtdk02sondti@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about the subject?
No, unless they are closed minded as to alternative hypothesis, in which
case they are not peer reviewing but peer censoring. that is not
scientific, but meets all of the definations of a cult.
"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field,
including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
Scriptural record."
--http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Time plus Chance |
02 Oct 2003 04:44:37 PM |
|
|
In article <KnZeb.4603$9G1.2538@news02.roc.ny>, "Adam Marczyk"
<see@sig.com> wrote:
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0210031044150001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0122.dialsprint.net...
In article <tnbnnvkllo59aukti6kbairtdk02sondti@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
Now do you have any comment regarding current peer-review? Do you
object to the notion of submitting ideas to the people who should
know something about | | | | | | | | | |
