A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 15:32 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-BC9BD5.12120402082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > 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. I looked below and above and see no evidence where you addressed this question to me. Cite where I ducked this question or remain a liar. > > 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? And the matter that causes this gravity comes from where? 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. Matter self replicating? Cite a specific example. > You know what a catalyst is, don't you? Is it utterly impossible for you > to imagine a molecule which is its own catalyst? Of course I know what a catalyst is, punk! The catalyst in my belief system is God. Your's is random chance over the course of billions of years. Your religion requires more faith but you are the exception. You are your own god and simply do not want the competition. I doubt if you sincerely believe in anything. Your game is to nitpick those who do. -Greg > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: John B. on 2 Aug 2010 17:06 On Aug 2, 2:23 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > > > In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82i...(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 > > @charter.net says... > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> > > > wrote: > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > > ><wcla...(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 Intelligent design is nothing more than a ruse cooked up by the people who had tried and failed get the courts to force the teaching of creationism in public schools. It's a joke.
From: John B. on 2 Aug 2010 17:08 On Aug 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > In article <8bofofF3j...(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 No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean?
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 17:33 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18ae96af-e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da875(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Aug 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > In article <8bofofF3j...(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 No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life resulting from the right mix of matter....no. -Greg
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 17:35
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:127d62e7-bc2a-4755-9a0e-c5f89d6c9d72(a)o19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Aug 2, 2:23 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > > > In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82i...(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 > > @charter.net says... > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> > > > wrote: > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > > ><wcla...(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 Intelligent design is nothing more than a ruse cooked up by the people who had tried and failed get the courts to force the teaching of creationism in public schools. It's a joke. --------------------------------------------------------------- Your opinion. There are plenty of smart people, including scientists, who believe otherwise. -Greg |