Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: More Debates.

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    ... From: SH To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:37 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: More Debates. ... Tin:
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 30 11:23 PM
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: SH
      Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:37 AM
      Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: More Debates.

       

      > > LA> After all, why do you bother to leave so many messages on the
      > > > Internet anyway? What purpose do you have in spending so much of
      > > > you valuable time this way?
      > >
      > > Tin: Easy. I love science. I despise the intrustion upon science from religously motivated.
      > >
      > >
      > > LA> But Tin, evolutionism is a religion.

      Tin: Idiotic claim.

      LA> Wrong again!  i.e.;

      ----------------------
           "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and
      biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science
      founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or a
      faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
      parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts
      which believers know to be true but neither, up to the
      present, has been capable of proof."

      (L.Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The
      Origin of Species, J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi)

      ==============

      LA> Thus you have blundered again and seem quite unable to understand science,   or religion!  Time for a rethink -- assuming that you have ever been able to think at all?  Perhaps you are just another VICTIM of Humanist/atheist/leftist control of education,  like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe said happened to them! i.e.;

      ----------------------

      "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
      to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
      creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
      (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

      ============

      Tin:  No churches.

      LA> Bulloney!  There are thousands of churches that take part on "Darwin's Day" and presumably have special "hymns" for the occasion.

      Tin:  No deities.

      LA> More humbug.  Darwin himself is worshipped as a deity. i.e.;

      ---------------------
               The theory of evolution as held today is, of course,
             associated most commonly with Charles Darwin.   It is
             doubtful whether any other scientist has ever
             received as much praise and adulation as has Darwin.

                He was even honored in what amounted almost to a
             religious worship service in a great convocation held
             in 1959 at the University of Chicago, on the occasion
             of the 100th anniversary of the publication of his
             famous book "The Origin of Species by Natural
             Selection".  On the anniversary year of his death
             (1982) there was another outpouring of ritual praise.

             (The Modern Creation Trilogy, Henry M. Morris and
             John D. Morris, vol.3, 1996, p.129B)

            ===========

      Tin:   Nothing supernatural.

      LA> Wrong again.  A noted and highly qualified atheist evolutionist has written about  Darwinism that ; "miracles would become the rule. . . :  i.e.;

      ----------------------
                "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting
           animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to
           believe.   Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A
           single plant,   a single animal would require thousands and
           thousands of lucky, appropriate events."

                "Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an
           infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur."

           (Pierre-Paul Grasse (University of Paris and
           past-President, French Acadamie des Sciences) in Evoltuion
           of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977,   p.103.)

          ===================

          Tin:  Based on evidence not faith.

       

      LA> How pathetically ignorant as the quote from noted evolutionist,  L. Harrison Matthews already provided,  has freely admitted!

       

      Laurie.

      "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
      (Niles Eldredge, eminent Punk-eek evolutionist,  1995)

      ..

       

    • SH
      ... It is YOUR half that is already being rammed down the throats of the greater than 80% of the population who take the view that IF EITHER view is being
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Self Contradicting Apple: Counting Heads--------

        " It is YOUR half that is already being rammed down the throats of the greater
        than 80% of the population who take the view that IF EITHER view is being
        taught then the other should be taught also, or NEITHER should be taught!" ~
        Laurie Appleton arguing in favor of counting heads.


        "Unless you are convinced that the truth in science is based
        on "counting heads," rather than accepting what the facts show, then
        perhaps there is HOPE for you yet! Did you accept the "spherical
        earth" concept by 'counting heads,' or was it the hard evidence that
        convinced you?" ~Laurie Appleton arguing against counting heads.


        > > > LA> After all, why do you bother to leave so many messages on the
        > > > > Internet anyway? What purpose do you have in spending so much of
        > > > > you valuable time this way?
        > > >
        > > > Tin: Easy. I love science. I despise the intrustion upon science from religously motivated.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > LA> But Tin, evolutionism is a religion.
        >
        > Tin: Idiotic claim.
        >
        >
        > LA> Wrong again! i.e.;


        Tin: Sorry Appleton, evolution is based on real scientific evidence -- you know the stuff you can't figure out how to present.


        Well Appleton at least ONE SIDE has substance.....


        -------Evidence for Evolution---

        --General Categories of Evidence--
        1. The Fossil Record;
        2. Biogeography;
        3. The Nested Hierarchy;
        4. Genetics;
        5. Directly observed evolution, including speciation.
        *Elaboration on request.

        --Specific Evidence--
        Overall Fossil Record Order
        first simple single celled life (prokaryotes) below
        first simple single celled life (with photosynthesis) below
        first complex single celled life (eukaryotes) below
        first multi-cellular organisms below
        first shelled organisms below
        first insects below
        first amphibians below
        first reptiles below
        first dinosaurs below
        first birds below
        first placental mammals below
        first apes below
        first hominids
      • Laurie Appleton
        ... From: SH To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:02 PM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: More Debates. ... The
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: SH
          Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:02 PM
          Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: More Debates.

           


          > > > LA> After all, why do you bother to leave so many messages on the
          > > > > Internet anyway? What purpose do you have in spending so much of
          > > > > you valuable time this way?
          > > >
          > > > Tin: Easy. I love science. I despise the intrustion upon science from religously motivated.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > LA> But Tin, evolutionism is a religion.
          >
          > Tin: Idiotic claim.
          >
          >
          > LA> Wrong again! i.e.;

          ----------------------
               "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and
          biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science
          founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or a
          faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
          parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts
          which believers know to be true but neither, up to the
          present, has been capable of proof."

          (L.Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The
          Origin of Species, J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi)

          ==============

          LA> Thus you have blundered again and seem quite unable to understand science,   or religion!  Time for a rethink -- assuming that you have ever been able to think at all?  Perhaps you are just another VICTIM of Humanist/atheist/leftist control of education,  like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe said happened to them! i.e.;

          ----------------------

          "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
          to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
          creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
          (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

          ============

          Laurie.
           
          "Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny dog breeding, finch-back  variations or similar instances of variations within a type."  (Phillip E. Johnson, 1998)
           
          ..

           

        • HumanCarol
          From The Laurie Appleton Regurgiquote File : Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny dog breeding, finch-back variations or similar instances of
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            From "The Laurie Appleton Regurgiquote File":

            "Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny dog breeding, finch-back variations or similar instances of variations within a type." (Phillip E. Johnson, 1998)

            Are you sure you don't mean:

            "Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny dog breeding, finch-beak variations or similar instances of variations within a type." (Phillip E. Johnson, 1998)
          • Laurie Appleton
            ... From: HumanCarol To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:56 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: More
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:56 AM
              Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: More Debates.

               

              From "The Laurie Appleton Regurgiquote File":

              "Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny dog breeding, finch-back variations or similar instances of variations within a type." (Phillip E. Johnson, 1998)

              HC:  Are you sure you don't mean:

              "Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny dog breeding, finch-beak variations or similar instances of variations within a type." (Phillip E. Johnson, 1998)

              LA>  Of course that is what is meant on BOTH occasions.  Are you sure that you are not having a series of "s, stut .stutt . . . stutter. er er ings?  Do you feel alright,  or have you been drinking?  So here is some more of that same page from Johnson's book;

              ------------------------

                          " . . . . . ".    Their main opponent was a biology
                     professor from a fundamentalist college, with a Ph.D.
                     from the University of Texas in zoology.    Lewontin reports
                     no details on the debate except to say that "despite our
                     absolutely compelling arguments,   the audience
                     unaccountably voted for the opposition." [lol]

                         Of course Lewontin and Sagan attributed the vote to the
                     audience's prejudice in favor of creationism.   The
                     resolution was framed in such a way,   however,   that the
                     affirmative side should have lost even if the jury had
                     been composed of Ivy League philosophy professors.

                        How  could the theory of evolution even conceivably be
                     "proved" to the same degree as "the fact that the Earth
                     goes around the sun"? The latter is an observable feature
                     of present-day reality,   whereas the former deals
                     primarily with nonrepeatable events of the very distant
                     past.

                       The appropriate comparison would be between the theory of
                     evolution and the accepted theory of the origin of the
                     solar system.

                           If evolution referred only to currently
                     observable phenomena like domestic animal breeding or
                     finch-beak variation, then winning the debate should have
                     been no problem for Lewontin and Sagan even with a
                     fundamentalist jury.   The statement   "We breed a great
                     variety of dogs," which rests on direct observation,   is
                     much easier to prove than the statement that the earth
                     goes around the sun,   which requires sophisticated
                     reasoning.

                       Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny dog
                     breeding, finch-beak variations or similar instances of
                     variation within a type.
              The more controversial claims of
                     large-scale evolution are what arouse skepticism.

                        Scientists may think they have good reasons for
                     believing that living organisms evolved naturally from
                     nonliving chemicals or that complex organs evolved by the
                     accumulation of micromutations through natural selection,
                     but having reasons is not the same as having proof.   I
                     have seen people, previously inclined to believe whatever
                     "science says,"   become skeptical when they realize that
                     scientists actually seem to think that finch-beak or
                     peppered-moth variation, or the mere existence of
                     fossils, proves all the vast claims of "evolution."

                     (Objections Sustained, Phillip E. Johnson, 1998, p.68)
                     ISBN 0-8308-1941-X)

                    ===============

              LA>  Have a nice purposeless and pointless day.  Make the most of what you assume it the only life that you will ever have..

              Laurie.

              "No wonder evolution has to be imposed by authority and bombast, rather than by reason, . . . ."
              (Henry M. Morris, Creation Scientist, 1996)

              ..

               

               
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.