A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Alan Baker on 2 Aug 2010 14:45 In article <8bogmfF9huU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:0af2d814-8cda-4648-8668-ce202b254cf7(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 31, 9:01 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > "William Clark" <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > In article <8bj66lFm2...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > > >news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to around the > > > > > world than science. > > > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at the game, > > > just to how they calm their nerves. > > > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot in the > > dark, like atheistic evolution. > > > > -Greg > > Are you a creationist? > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes. An old earth, old universe creationist. > > -Greg And yet you'll never deal with the question of from whence the creator you imagine exists came.... -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 15:00 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <8bofofF3jhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > How little faith you have in scientists. If it were happening, it would be > > observed. > > Sounds like you're the one who has faith. I think there are sincere scientists out there who would love to observe this. > > > 2. More importantly, new life would be very undeveloped to compete > > > against life that has been evolving for billions of eyes. > > > > Think in terms of logic. The ancient collision of matter creates a spark of > > life, according to evolutionists.. Don't you think that enviroment is more > > hostile than the one that exists on earth? > > Not to new life, no. > > Scientists have already demonstrated that the chemicals of life arise > spontaneously from the elements and compounds that existed on the early > earth. Cite. > Now the first very simple "lifeform" comes together: what other life is > it competing with? > > If such a simple lifeform came into being today, it would be in a > environment of thousands and thousands of other microscopic life who > would be able to feed on it. Fine. Then all scientists have to do is "create" the enviroment that this life comes from nothing, and then make it sterile from outside predators, then observe whether this "life" eats and reproduces. Trouble is....no life has ever been created in a lab or on earth. Cite where it has. -Greg
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 15:09 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-0EE6C8.11414102082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <8boghaF8egU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com... > > > In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 > > > @charter.net says... > > > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > > > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution. > > > > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > > > > > > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long > > > > >before Darwin. > > > > > > > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not > > > > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved > > > > >from something else. > > > > > > > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > > > > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > > > > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > > > > DNA. > > > > > > Where did the DNA come from? > > > > > > I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never > > > will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an explanation of > > > what caused the Big Bang. Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA > > > oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of he > > > Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some re-Sciencing > > > going on. > > > > I think there is a bigger question at hand. Matter, left on it's own, > > decays from complex to simple. The big question is how matter was formed > > out of nothing, collided, then sparked life, then became increasingly > > organized and complex. From where I sit, intelligent design is the only > > rational answer. > > > > -Greg > > Only because when asked the next logical question ("Where did the > designer come from?"), you cover your ears, shy away, and hide. Cite where I ducked this question, liar. He has no beginning or ending is my answer. It certainly is more reasonable than something coming from nothing, then getting organized. -Greg
From: Alan Baker on 2 Aug 2010 15:12 In article <8boj7fFpinU2(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-0EE6C8.11414102082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > In article <8boghaF8egU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > > > news:MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 > > > > @charter.net says... > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee > <howard(a)brazee.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > > > > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in > evolution. > > > > > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > > > > > > > > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious > long > > > > > >before Darwin. > > > > > > > > > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means > "not > > > > > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans > evolved > > > > > >from something else. > > > > > > > > > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > > > > > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > > > > > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > > > > > DNA. > > > > > > > > Where did the DNA come from? > > > > > > > > I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never > > > > will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an explanation > of > > > > what caused the Big Bang. Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA > > > > oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of > he > > > > Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some > re-Sciencing > > > > going on. > > > > > > I think there is a bigger question at hand. Matter, left on it's own, > > > decays from complex to simple. The big question is how matter was > formed > > > out of nothing, collided, then sparked life, then became increasingly > > > organized and complex. From where I sit, intelligent design is the only > > > rational answer. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > Only because when asked the next logical question ("Where did the > > designer come from?"), you cover your ears, shy away, and hide. > > Cite where I ducked this question, liar. See below. > He has no beginning or ending is my answer. But for some reason the universe can't be said to do the same thing? > It certainly is more reasonable than something coming from nothing, then > getting organized. Why? Stars and planets form because gravity pulls them together and then remain organized. You do acknowledge that, right? Why shouldn't it be possible for molecules to come together in ways that are analogous? Elements combine to form compounds, some of those compounds are more stable than others, some can for patterns that self-replicate. You know what a catalyst is, don't you? Is it utterly impossible for you to imagine a molecule which is its own catalyst? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 15:17
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-CFB750.11333002082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <8bog73F69tU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote in message > > news:5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com... > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution. > > > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > > > > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long > > > >before Darwin. > > > > > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not > > > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved > > > >from something else. > > > > > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > > > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > > > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > > > DNA. > > > > It is not easy to find physical evidence. The transcending mutatations > > fossils between species should far outweigh the fossils for existing or > > extinct species. Yet there is virtually nothing in the fossil record. > > There is evolution within species....the evidence....but not from one > > species to another. > > > > -Greg > > Fascinating. > > If that's true, there should be fossils for every species that exists to > day in every strata of the fossil record... > > ...but there aren't. Regardless....there are a plethora of species who are captured in time via the fossil record. But why are there few, if any, mutated transitional species. You know...Ape to Baker mutations, or better yet, ?? to ape to Baker. Shouldn't these mutated, transitional species far outweigh existing species? -Greg |