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

RE: [creat] Re: So here we go again

Expand Messages
  • Esa Nyrhinen
    Hi! =) New information would mean example a completely new organ, structure, etc. ... wrote: Aha, I see. Just change the definition to make it so ...
    Message 1 of 51 , Aug 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi! =)

      New information would mean example a completely new
      organ, structure, etc.

      --- "Stephen J. Krogh" <panterragroup@...>
      wrote: > Aha, I see. Just change the definition to
      make it so
      > broad as to not have
      > any scientific meaning at all, and add a touch of
      > incredulity.
      >
      > ==========================================
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Esa Nyrhinen [mailto:ezanahka@...]
      > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:39 AM
      > > To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: RE: [creat] Re: So here we go again
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi! =)
      > >
      > > --- "Stephen J. Krogh"
      > <panterragroup@...>
      > > wrote: >
      > > > It is not the "correction" aspect that I was
      > > > commenting on. The arbitrary
      > > > nature of the goalposts just means that
      > > > macro-evolution is just defined as
      > > > "the kind of evolution that I don't believe in."
      > It
      > > > is like the definition
      > > > of "kind."
      > > >
      > > > Stephen J. Krogh
      > >
      > > Aha. To me the difference between micro and macro
      > is
      > > the quantity of genetic information. Micro merely
      > > modifies the old and macro creates new information
      > and
      > > lots of it.
      > >
      > > > ==========================================
      > > >
      > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > From: Esa Nyrhinen [mailto:ezanahka@...]
      > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:49 AM
      > > > > To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Subject: RE: [creat] Re: So here we go again
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi! =)
      > > > >
      > > > > Well, do you know where the goalposts should
      > be?
      > > > > Or do you wish that no creationist would never
      > > > correct
      > > > > their position in any way?
      > > > > But then again that would make things too easy
      > for
      > > > you
      > > > > wouldn't it?
      > > > > How come evolutionists can debate amongst
      > > > themselves
      > > > > on how evolution happened but hardly ever even
      > > > > question if it really happened?
      > > > > Why is the how an open question if the if is
      > not?
      > > > >
      > > > > --- "Stephen J. Krogh"
      > > > <panterragroup@...>
      > > > > wrote: > You know, thinking back, I remember
      > the
      > > > days
      > > > > when
      > > > > > speciation WAS considered
      > > > > > "macro" evolution. Ah, those infamous moving
      > > > > > goalposts. When it becomes
      > > > > > undeniable, the definition travels up to the
      > > > next
      > > > > > level of taxonomy.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Stephen J. Krogh
      > > > > > ==========================================
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > > From: Esa Nyrhinen
      > [mailto:ezanahka@...]
      > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:31 AM
      > > > > > > To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > > > Subject: Re: [creat] Re: So here we go
      > again
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hi! =)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- ergasterd <ergaster@...>
      > wrote: >
      > > > -
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > What it has done is cast doubt on HOW
      > man
      > > > > > evolved.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > What, precisely, do you mean by "how"?
      > It
      > > > casts
      > > > > > no
      > > > > > > > doubt at all on
      > > > > > > > the mechanisms of evolution, or the
      > > > mechanisms
      > > > > > of
      > > > > > > > speciation. Were
      > > > > > > > you under the impression that it did?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > The more important question here would be
      > IF
      > > > > > evolved
      > > > > > > at all.
      > > > > > > Speciation is in the category of
      > > > microevolution.
      > > > >
      > > > > Blessings, ez
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > __________________________________________________
      > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
      > > > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
      > > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Post message: creationism@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Online:
      > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > __________________________________________________
      > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
      > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
      > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
      > >
      > >
      > > Post message: creationism@yahoogroups.com
      > > Online:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Everything you'll ever need on one web page
      from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
      http://uk.my.yahoo.com
    • Esa Nyrhinen
      Hi! =) ... creationism@y..., Esa Nyrhinen ... If it can be conclusively shown that it is completely new, has a completely new function and has evolved in
      Message 51 of 51 , Aug 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi! =)

        --- efvinson <address@...> wrote: > --- In
        creationism@y..., Esa Nyrhinen
        > <ezanahka@y...> wrote:
        > > Hi! =)
        > >
        > > New information would mean example a completely
        > new
        > > organ, structure, etc.
        >
        > Would a new protein with a novel function qualify?
        >
        > Ed

        If it can be conclusively shown that it is completely
        new, has a completely new function and has evolved in
        circumstances which correspond natural environment
        completely without intelligent guidance.
        And if you can show me evidence that this has happened
        then I would like to know how irreducibly complex this
        new piece of genetic information is.

        Blessings, ez

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Everything you'll ever need on one web page
        from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
        http://uk.my.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.