From: Carbon on
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:14:24 -0700, dene wrote:
> "William Clark" <clark(a)> wrote in
> message
> news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)
>> In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)>, "dene"
>> <dene(a)> wrote:
>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)
>>>> In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)>, BAR
>>>> <screw(a)> wrote:
>>>>> Evolution is a theory.
>>>> Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to
>>>> proven as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory.
>>>> However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic.
>>> There are those who believe in God and evolution.
>> Which entirely proves Alan's point. Duh.
> I used the words atheistic evolution vs. deistic evolution, to
> illustrate that the former requires more faith than those who believe
> in pig guts and astrology. Duh.
> Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and
> development of life.

Or not. To me non-magical explanations are inherently more reasonable.
From: Carbon on
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:35:00 -0700, dene wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505(a)> wrote in message
> news:127d62e7-bc2a-4755-9a0e-
> c5f89d6c9d72(a)
>> On Aug 2, 2:23 pm, "dene" <d...(a)> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.

That may be, but they are not taken seriously by the scientific
community since that they're advocating is incompatible with science.

There are too many exceptions to the complexity argument for it to be
From: Carbon on
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:50:18 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
> news:4c5364d2$0$4971$9a6e19ea(a)
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:40:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> Like Obama you haven't thought it through. What is the difference
>>> between the persons housed at Gitmo and the criminals you described?
>> Those housed at Gitmo have been tortured, so there is no practical
>> way to prosecute them.
> All of them?

I would suspect so, but I don't know. I do know there's no practical way
to prosecute someone who stands up in court and says, "I was
waterboarded 62 times. Of course I admitted to all kinds of things. You
would have done the same in my place."
From: BAR on
In article <clark-745AEB.09212902082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio->, clark(a) says...
> > > Indeed, "the people" pay to have roads built. A communal, socialistic,
> > > decision (developers don;t build interstates, must as you would wish
> > > it). Nice snip of the relevant accusation, though. Saves you another red
> > > face.
> >
> > It sucks when you can't say that the Government builds the roads. The
> > government is just the middle man handling the money.
> And the "money" is the sole reason roads get built. No tickee, no
> shirtee.

Nice job racist Billy. Does OSU know of your racist views.

From: Don Kirkman on
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:17:43 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)>

>"Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)> wrote in message
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)>
>> wrote:

>> >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.

You've got several assumptions packed into your point. First, there
may be a quantum downward jump between the numbers of *failed*
mutations and the numbers of successful ones. (Think genetic
diseases, hardly an unqualified success. And there were the saurians,
a huge success until the conditions changed faster than they could

Second, there were arguably (I'd even venture "almost certainly")
more species that vanished leaving no fossil remains or whose fossil
remains have yet to be discovered than the number of fossilized
species we know of. The fossil record is a series of instantaneous
snapshots, not a full length movie. But isn't it amazing that each
new find seems to fit somewhere in the range of what we knew
already--based on DNA and physical characteristics?

DNA and physical morphology both point pretty strongly to humans
evolving from the same type/group of ancestrals that the rest of the
primates did. Man didn't come from a monkey, but man came from the
same roots as his companions on the primate tree.

The fossils, of course, are sorted out into species and groups by the
academics, but the evidence is strong that newer species are usually
modifications of older ones.

And astrophysicists are making truly astounding discoveries about the
events of the last 13.75 �0.17 billion years, ranging from the
unimaginably small to the biggest bang of them all.
Don Kirkman
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?