SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISTS

Ponds are small ecosystems that have to be maintain by an outside influence.
what would happen if an artifical pond gets abandoned? will the koi evolve?


Actually if the pond is big enough to sustain the population as a breeding
population they will evolve and quite quickly. I just a few generations you
will no longer have the fancy brightly colored koi just carp evolved to survive
in the environment they are stuck in. Give it up, you are out of your league.

Moon

the hallmark of pseudoscience is the conclusion is written in stone and cannot be
questioned nor proven false. therefore only "facts" or beliefs that agree with the
conclusion are gathered and used, all other facts are dismissed and ignored.
2. it is pointless to discuss facts with people who "believe". Beliefs are not
debatable.
Ingrid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

the hallmark of pseudoscience is the conclusion is written in stone and cannot be
questioned nor proven false. therefore only "facts" or beliefs that agree with the
conclusion are gathered and used, all other facts are dismissed and ignored.
2. it is pointless to discuss facts with people who "believe". Beliefs are not
debatable.
Ingrid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

jrh wrote:

In article -amikchi, -amikchi
says...


On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:00:15 +0000 in episode
3mHbc.148712$cx5.31998@fed1read04 we saw our hero (jrh):


In article -amikchi,
-amikchi says...



On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:06:41 +0000 in episode
lgubc.139981$cx5.26719@fed1read04 we saw our hero (jrh):

In article -amikchi,
-amikchi says...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:01:27 +0000 in episode
rEjbc.112155$cx5.3141@fed1read04 we saw our hero (jrh):

In article ,
says...

Jabriol wrote:



From thier point of view the Bible book of Genesis, the universe
was created by God less than ten thousand years ago.

clip



First, evolution has nothing whatsoever to say concerning the
creation of the universe or the Earth. It is only concerned with
what happens to life once it exists.



that's why Darwins book was titled "ORIGIN of Species"



Yes. Exactly.



One could argue the airplane "evolved" from a car or from a man or from
mankind. If the framework excluded creativity and tried to make the
case using economic forces or survival it would be inadequate. The
same is true of the origin of life or the origin of species, what ever
it means, because the simplest form of life, is unquestionably more
complex than the most complex airplane.



I know evolutionists have abandoned hope of ever explaining the origin
of life, it is time to realize that life involves many complexities
that can not be resolved by random selection or any other type of
sucessive approximation. Some problems demand descrimination and
insight.



You still don't get it. Evolution has never, at any point, not once,
ever been a theory of explanation of the origin of *LIFE.*



I just stipulated the scope of evolution has been narrowed, or for all I
care never did include the origin of "life". Why don't you address the
fact there are problems in origin of species to complex to be solved by
random activity?


The "scope" has never been "narrowed." The origin of life is a red herring
and irrelevant.


Then why continue to bring it up and ignore the problem of
complexity in the origin of a species?


I have no interest in trying to explain the mountains of evidence
to some ignorant on Usenet.


What evidence can you give showing there are no problems
involved in the origin of a species that can not be solved by
a mindless process?

clip

It's a sign of utter, abysmal ignorance to say "...evolutionists have
abandoned hope of ever explaining the origin of life..." It's indication
you flat do NOT know what you're talking about.



Are you saying evolutionist still hope to come up with something or not?


It is, and always has been, irrelevant to the ToE.

Which theory, or is there only one?


Do you as an evolutionist believe that chemicals evolved into the the
first cell, or was the first cell created?


No "explanation" is necessary. The ToE *begins with life and
explains something I don't think you understand to begin with.


I understand that everything changes over time. What is being
debated is what caused the different species to be formed.
For the third time, I don't care if evolutionists never
believed the cell evolved from a chemical stew. Perhaps
you could explain the roots of that "myth" and show
how it was fabricated by creationists trying to undermine
evolutionism.

Isn't "evolution" a theory or a belief that undirected selective
process and mutations in the genetic information that controls
the cells are the cause of cells becoming species,
and species transforming into other species?


Abiogenesis is where the origin of *life is being explored.
And the answer to "how did life begin" is, at this moment:


"We don't know."


And evolution is not known to be true, it is only a theory
or set of theories, the best attempt by persons with a
certain point of view to organize and make sense of information
gathered from a wide range of sciences.

Only if the point of view is that the evidence should be support the
theory.

Evolutionism has reached a dead end that anyone with an open
mind could see if they would take the time to look. This
is a truth those who believe evolutionist theory can not be wrong
will never be able to see.

This is common creationist propoganda, accepted only by the ignorant.
The fact is that the vast majority of people who work or study in
biology and are actually exposed to and understand the facts accept the
evidence


--
#1636
Not BAAWA

jrh wrote:

In article -amikchi, -amikchi
says...


On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:00:15 +0000 in episode
3mHbc.148712$cx5.31998@fed1read04 we saw our hero (jrh):


In article -amikchi,
-amikchi says...



On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:06:41 +0000 in episode
lgubc.139981$cx5.26719@fed1read04 we saw our hero (jrh):

In article -amikchi,
-amikchi says...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:01:27 +0000 in episode
rEjbc.112155$cx5.3141@fed1read04 we saw our hero (jrh):

In article ,
says...

Jabriol wrote:



From thier point of view the Bible book of Genesis, the universe
was created by God less than ten thousand years ago.

clip



First, evolution has nothing whatsoever to say concerning the
creation of the universe or the Earth. It is only concerned with
what happens to life once it exists.



that's why Darwins book was titled "ORIGIN of Species"



Yes. Exactly.



One could argue the airplane "evolved" from a car or from a man or from
mankind. If the framework excluded creativity and tried to make the
case using economic forces or survival it would be inadequate. The
same is true of the origin of life or the origin of species, what ever
it means, because the simplest form of life, is unquestionably more
complex than the most complex airplane.



I know evolutionists have abandoned hope of ever explaining the origin
of life, it is time to realize that life involves many complexities
that can not be resolved by random selection or any other type of
sucessive approximation. Some problems demand descrimination and
insight.



You still don't get it. Evolution has never, at any point, not once,
ever been a theory of explanation of the origin of *LIFE.*



I just stipulated the scope of evolution has been narrowed, or for all I
care never did include the origin of "life". Why don't you address the
fact there are problems in origin of species to complex to be solved by
random activity?


The "scope" has never been "narrowed." The origin of life is a red herring
and irrelevant.


Then why continue to bring it up and ignore the problem of
complexity in the origin of a species?


I have no interest in trying to explain the mountains of evidence
to some ignorant on Usenet.


What evidence can you give showing there are no problems
involved in the origin of a species that can not be solved by
a mindless process?

clip

It's a sign of utter, abysmal ignorance to say "...evolutionists have
abandoned hope of ever explaining the origin of life..." It's indication
you flat do NOT know what you're talking about.



Are you saying evolutionist still hope to come up with something or not?


It is, and always has been, irrelevant to the ToE.

Which theory, or is there only one?


Do you as an evolutionist believe that chemicals evolved into the the
first cell, or was the first cell created?


No "explanation" is necessary. The ToE *begins with life and
explains something I don't think you understand to begin with.


I understand that everything changes over time. What is being
debated is what caused the different species to be formed.
For the third time, I don't care if evolutionists never
believed the cell evolved from a chemical stew. Perhaps
you could explain the roots of that "myth" and show
how it was fabricated by creationists trying to undermine
evolutionism.

Isn't "evolution" a theory or a belief that undirected selective
process and mutations in the genetic information that controls
the cells are the cause of cells becoming species,
and species transforming into other species?


Abiogenesis is where the origin of *life is being explored.
And the answer to "how did life begin" is, at this moment:


"We don't know."


And evolution is not known to be true, it is only a theory
or set of theories, the best attempt by persons with a
certain point of view to organize and make sense of information
gathered from a wide range of sciences.

Only if the point of view is that the evidence should be support the
theory.

Evolutionism has reached a dead end that anyone with an open
mind could see if they would take the time to look. This
is a truth those who believe evolutionist theory can not be wrong
will never be able to see.

This is common creationist propoganda, accepted only by the ignorant.
The fact is that the vast majority of people who work or study in
biology and are actually exposed to and understand the facts accept the
evidence


--
#1636
Not BAAWA

Let 'Swine" not be taken negative, just a term for one not "evolved"
enough to be able to handle reality. That's you, oh knuckle-dragger.


What is really scary is this guy might at some point be responsible for
deciding what type of cirriculum real students will have to study leaving them
totally unprepared for the real world.

Moon

Let 'Swine" not be taken negative, just a term for one not "evolved"
enough to be able to handle reality. That's you, oh knuckle-dragger.


What is really scary is this guy might at some point be responsible for
deciding what type of cirriculum real students will have to study leaving them
totally unprepared for the real world.

Moon

jrh wrote:

In article ,
says...

clipitall

ECC's in computer processes are used to make imperfect information
perfect. No one with any understanding of computer science
would ever believe programs could evolve into better programs because
of random errors.

The only reason life survives is because the genetic code has
many different ECC's operating that correct damaged information,
and make it "perfect". When the damage can not be corrected,
illness or death follow.

Did someone actually tell you this or did you make it up yourself? A
lot of damae can be ignored, indeed some damage to the DNA does not
alter th eprotein at all


Once cells acquire the ability to support intellegence, the
attributes of God can enter into any cellular system and control
the process from within. The manifistation of consciousness
and intellegence within the biosphere is an established fact.

The belief that man arrose from mindless slime is an
anti-intellectual superstition, devised by an evil spirit
and spread by usefull idiots, so that many might be enslaved
to it's will.

Those paragraphs seem to coontradict each other. In the first, you say
cells have acquired intelligence, in the second you say it can't have
evolved


--
#1636
Not BAAWA

jrh wrote:

In article ,
says...

clipitall

ECC's in computer processes are used to make imperfect information
perfect. No one with any understanding of computer science
would ever believe programs could evolve into better programs because
of random errors.

The only reason life survives is because the genetic code has
many different ECC's operating that correct damaged information,
and make it "perfect". When the damage can not be corrected,
illness or death follow.

Did someone actually tell you this or did you make it up yourself? A
lot of damae can be ignored, indeed some damage to the DNA does not
alter th eprotein at all


Once cells acquire the ability to support intellegence, the
attributes of God can enter into any cellular system and control
the process from within. The manifistation of consciousness
and intellegence within the biosphere is an established fact.

The belief that man arrose from mindless slime is an
anti-intellectual superstition, devised by an evil spirit
and spread by usefull idiots, so that many might be enslaved
to it's will.

Those paragraphs seem to coontradict each other. In the first, you say
cells have acquired intelligence, in the second you say it can't have
evolved


--
#1636
Not BAAWA

Subject: SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISTS


Again the term is an oxymoron, you are a troll and the only flaw in evolution
is that is produces dead ends like you. Do all Jehovia witneses act like you?
If so than next time they come around I won't be polite I'll run them off my
propertyand press trepassing charges. You obviously came from the shallow end
of the gene pool. You are too stupid to even argue your own point. What is it
about evolution that bother you the most? That you might be some how related to
a monkey (that's obvious so it must not be a problem) Personally I think that
evolution insults the monkeys if you are suppooed to be superior to them. Why
don't you go out and earn the darwin award for the year. I know it would be a
challenge for someone with your mental capasity.Do humanity a favor, don't
reproduce. I never realized they made IQ numbers in negatives. I bet you are
the life of the party, oops I forgot your religion doesn't party, doesn't
slaute the flag, celibrate Christs birthday or have sex except to procreate. No
wonder you are in such a bad mood. Were you born a Jehovia's witness or did
they convert you? I wonder if they would now that they know what they got.

Moon