From: William Clark on
In article <8bokj2F2hcU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:

> "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.
>
Yes, well there is your problem. If you seriously think that God is an
intelligent designer, then you should simply butt out of any discussion
that has science in it. If you just want to live on naive faith then
good luck to you.

But don't tell the rest of us what our vision of God is.
From: John B. on
On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...(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

Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been here?
From: William Clark on
In article <8bojo2Fsr7U2(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:

> "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

That is what was said about the transition of fish to amphibians. Then,
guess what, in 2004 they found Tiktaalik Rosae, a classic example of a
transitional form, that fitted right in the middle. Oops.
From: William Clark on
In article <8bog0sF559U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com...
> > > > In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <alangbaker-15E2AB.23062231072010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > > > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <8bjv3hFufjU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > > > > > > In article <8bj66lFm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > > > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "BAR" <screw(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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LOL
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evolution is not atheistic or theistic, Greg. It simply is.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > -Greg
> >
> > 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.

Why and how? You are clearly defining a belief in God as necessitating
adherence to "intelligent" design. That's just BS.

You are trying the usual "you don't understand" platitude of the
creationists when science knocks them on their rear.
>
> Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and development
> of life.

Why and how? Especially given that it has zero scientific basis to
support it.
From: William Clark on
In article <8bp2edFhjdU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:

> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4c574338$0$4964$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:14:24 -0700, dene wrote:
> > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
> > > message
> > > news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > >> In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene"
> > >> <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > >>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message
> > >>> news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com...
> > >>>> In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR
> > >>>> <screw(a)you.com> 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.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Something from nothing, randomly colliding into life, surviving, and then
> becoming more complex sans design, is more magical thinking than a supreme
> creative being.

In other words, than ID. Thanks for making your intellectual foundations
so clear to the rest of us.
>
> Why 10 fingers instead of 8? Why do we have hair? Why not eyes in the back
> of our heads? If survival is the basis for evolutionary change, then it
> would seem we should have the eyesight of a fly.

Evolution, evolution, evolution. We have what we need. We don't need a
fly's eye because we don't have to see that well. Seems to work, since I
would say we have dominance over the fly, wouldn't you?
>
> Thousands of design questions but no answers within the laboratory or the
> fossil record. Just theory with a lot of magical assumptions.

Ah, that word "design" again. It's getting clearer and clearer on which
side of this discussion "magic" resides, and it is not that of science.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?