"JB" wrote in news:bGguk.63$Dj1.42@trnddc02:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your
statement is
a
fantasy construct.
The[y] would likely be assassinated in the Media.
A little dry humor
Fantasy isn't harmfull unless we base conclusions on it.



Believe me, I have already intuited that you believe in the "religion
of evolution", as opposed to a religion believing in a God.

Wrong. You are correct though in characterizing evolution as a
religion.

Oh joy, another "Evolution is a religion" person.

Evolution theory functions as centerpiece of some wonder, but there
are glaring problems: No evidence of missing links in the face of
Tons of fossil evidence of a great variety of unique species
(notwithstanding sub-species that are obviously related).

Where do you get this from, some textbook from the late 1800's?
There is so much evidence of linkage today that your statement is 100
percent incorrect.


Evidence
suggest that species would have had to spontaneously come into being
en masse from extreme outbreaks of very specific mutation.

Citations please?


Creation
would make more sense than that because mutation overwhelmingly is a
deterioration resulting in a loss of viability.

While "mutation" can often be detrimental, we have to determine if you
define mutations as genetic variability. Is a person who is efficent at
storing fat a mutation as compared to one with a fast metabolism? Natural
selection selects for that efficient person in times of little food.


Additionally, Life
even in what we would consider simple one-celled organisms are in fact
highly organized and cooperative communities of seemingly
intelligently flexible or single purpose mechanisms.

Check out Lipid cells - they are a significant step in self organizing
structures.

None of which
would survive without the viability of the whole organism.

Organisms that have become more complex do depend on that complexity.

So which
came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now this is the zenith of science!

At any given time since "chickens have come into existance, they just lay
eggs, and more chickens come about. If there was some way to pinpointa
pre-chicke, the egg would be the first part. The pre-chicken hatches the
first chicken. But it doesn't work that way.

Neither could have been viable or
accidentally come into being on their own.

That is the supposition of the answer.


Then where are the fossils
of the supposed transitional species. We know there is some
flexibility within the species for adaptation, but new species are a
great leap over a nonexistent bridge.

So, are you saying that every possible fossil has been discovered?

Where did all those animals go anyhow, and why are not modern men's
fossils in the earliest stratum?


The evolution theory was
actually based only on observations and wrong conclusions and even
Darwin thought to abandon it. It might not have survived to this day
if it were not commandeered for it's political value to justify
revolution, genocide and a notion that in order for an idea to be
viable, all others must be destroyed.

Citations please?

The notion that apes
transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures.

Wrong. Humans did not descend from apes. We did not evolve from apes.

It is exceptionally difficult to make a rational argument when the same
old LIE is repeated over and over again.


Today we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on
shooting sprees and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me
about evolution.

Are you serious? Quite the non-sequitar.

It is obvious, at this point, one has only two religions to believe
in:

1) A thinking mind created "all."

2) ALL spontaneously came into being.

The first requires a belief in God.

The second requires a belief that living organisms (or, biological
"machines") can spontaneously come into being, and that the elements
in the universe can spontaneously come into being from a space
composed of "absolute nothing."

OK, essentially GOD or No GOD.

If you are serious about this, you are listening to the wrong people.
There is no reason that a god could not create a universe in which every
singel evolutionary concept would appear as we have seen. This god could
also create every being as wildly different in structure, different
cellular metabolism, or even more effective, create everything as sacs of
goo with no perceptable means of "living" but living none the less.


On close examination, an intelligent would most likely deny the
possibility of either.

However, it is obvious one is correct ...

Wrong. There is the third possibility that something created the universe
and the life in it, and allowed it to go it's way. If it eveloved fine,
if not, fine.


It is obvious that life operates with great intelligence despite our
conscous will, so we have that much proof of intelligence although not
much of it comes to our awareness with that much regularity.


Why any one individual would choose one over the other, with no proof
being available, is simply a function of human nature ... then, for
someone having chosen one over the other, to ridicule the other
possibility--well, that is simply insanity!

Different folks have a different definition of insanity. You have so many
wrong suppositions in your beliefs, such as evolution as the beginning
of life - it makes no such claims. The no transitional forms - there are
plenty, and more showing up all the time. The idea of irreducable
complexity as you point out in your earlier cellular part. Many of the
things that are presumably too complex, such as the human eye, can be
shown to have many present day light sensing processes that run the gamut
from simple sensing, to rudimentary lenses, to the human eye, to those of
raptors.

To qoute oft repeated and very wrong precepts is disingenuous at best. In
extreme cases, it starts to look as if a person is "lying for God". And
he doesn't like that!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -