"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.

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). Evidence suggest that species
would have had to spontaneously come into being en masse from extreme
outbreaks of very specific mutation. Creation would make more sense than
that because mutation overwhelmingly is a deterioration resulting in a loss
of viability. 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. None of which would survive without the viability of the whole
organism. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither could have
been viable or accidentally come into being on their own. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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

However, it is obvious one is correct ...

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!

Occams' Razor is clear on which would be chosen ... the aliens, at least
for the short term explanation ...

So Aliens created the universe? Occam's Razor is only an expedient. It
only works for simplicity's sake and calls us to make assumptions where our
understanding fails. The scientific mind would ponder and record the
evidence allowing for lack of understanding rather than summarily executing
God, or constructing explanations simply to deny God. All too often I see
experiments that are discredited because the results cannot be
satisfactorily explained by the answer sought. A belief in God should not
be such a problem for those who don't believe unless their wicked nature
makes it so.

"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 -

JB wrote:
... 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. 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.
...

If one were to tear apart a mud hut, and then a state-of-the-art
building, he/she would only find the basic building blocks are more
similar then dissimilar ... most likely, 99%+ of the elements in the
state of the art building can also be found in the mud-hut ... I see no
reason why someone should expect different in the basic building blocks
of life.

First there is a prototype, then improved designs, and at some point in
the future, or far-far-future, a finished design (maybe.)

We are all looking at the same "evidence" alright, the crux of the
matter is in the interpretation(s.)

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

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

If one were to tear apart a mud hut, and then a state-of-the-art
building, he/she would only find the basic building blocks are more
similar then dissimilar ... most likely, 99%+ of the elements in the
state of the art building can also be found in the mud-hut ... I see no
reason why someone should expect different in the basic building blocks
of life.

Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings. Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.

Were talking about complex molecules that do specific jobs and drive complex
machinery. Think of a cell as a city with numerous factories to make it
self sufficient. DNA decides not only how the factories will be built but
what factories are needed and how they will all interact to make the cell
self-sufficient, and some of the factories will be build only as needed from
parts from other factories that are deemed surplus as they too can be
rebuild as necessary. All the Plans are in the DNA but how does the cell or
any part of it know when or what plans to consult and who or what redraws
the plans as necessary. Still the DNA is very specific in what capabilities
are available so that the fly cant grow a human foot or the frog won't grow
a hoof. The DNA is limited only to minor changes. Any more and things
needed to survive aren't there. Splice too much and the different parts
fight each other.

Now consider that all members/parts/factories/roads/power/lights/political
parties in the system have to work together and if one part is out of place
the system crashes and the organism never happens.

Here is another puzzlement. It seems that the difference between Man and
Woman are that one end of the structure is slightly goofed so that between
the woman and man several traits are either activated or not. Other than
that they are the same structure. But how can you say that one is evolved
differently from the other?!? With out the difference, the species would
never have been so it could have nothing to do with evolution, leading one
to expect a spontaneous event {*POP*} where both could continue as one flesh
so to speak as there would never have been time for an evolutionary change
to allow them both to evolve into a viable species.

Consider this: One translation says "You formed me even in the womb from
the lower parts of the earth" Or to that effect. could the translation as
easily be designed and programmed elementally in the womb. Certainly fits
what is actually happening, but what does a sheppard boy know of DNA?



First there is a prototype, then improved designs, and at some point in
the future, or far-far-future, a finished design (maybe.)

We are all looking at the same "evidence" alright, the crux of the
matter is in the interpretation(s.)

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

JB wrote:

...
Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings. Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.


Absolutely no difference in the context which the point is being made,
you are confusing basic building blocks with technology--apples and
oranges ...

Were talking about complex molecules that do specific jobs and drive complex
machinery. Think of a cell as a city with numerous factories to make it
self sufficient. DNA decides not only how the factories will be built but
what factories are needed and how they will all interact to make the cell
self-sufficient, and some of the factories will be build only as needed from
parts from other factories that are deemed surplus as they too can be
rebuild as necessary. All the Plans are in the DNA but how does the cell or
any part of it know when or what plans to consult and who or what redraws
the plans as necessary. Still the DNA is very specific in what capabilities
are available so that the fly cant grow a human foot or the frog won't grow
a hoof. The DNA is limited only to minor changes. Any more and things
needed to survive aren't there. Splice too much and the different parts
fight each other.


A toy serves a different purpose than a diesel truck. Those purposes
cannot be confused with what they are built from--a dung beetle is
constructed for a different purpose than a human ...

...

You argument contains more your agenda than rational debate in a quest
for answers... colleges are constructed just for such purposes--to
educate you in the differences ...

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

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

...
Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're
talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings.
Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but
stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.


Absolutely no difference in the context which the point is being made,
you are confusing basic building blocks with technology--apples and
oranges ...

I lost your context then. The only thing in common between the skyscraper
and mud hut is that they have a maker and some plan. Maybe some wood. If
you are talking Chemistry, then you are getting specific and I doubt they
use the same mud formula in the skyscraper anywhere but in the flower pots.
The only thing
in common with various different species are proteins, and they aren't
even life. I contend that the complexities involved are too astronomical to
be accidental because outside of minor adaptability that are wired for,
changes from one species to another couldn't happen one step at a time, it
would be just as probable if male and female of a species popped out ready
made. You cant make a semi out of a VW bug without recycling and
redesigning it from the ground up.

You argument contains more your agenda than rational debate in a quest
for answers... colleges are constructed just for such purposes--to
educate you in the differences ...

There is no place for rational debate on this subject (and many others) in
most colleges. It conflicts with the agenda to promote Globalism, Marxism
and
homosexuality, and especially the denial of God, national unity, or any
authority above the Global Socialist state. Karl Marx was a seminary
student when he stumbled onto Darwin's book. After reading it, he lost his
faith and went to formulate his own theories of life and revolution. Hitler
also read Darwin's book and made references to it in Mein Kamph and other
works to justify ridding the world of "inferior species" in order to promote
evolution. Darwin became an Atheist because he couldn't bear the thought of
his Father going to Hell for committing suicide and sought to promote
Atheism. Interesting to note, several of his children had birth defects.

I present this in the context that Darwin promoted:
1. That all life on the planet evolved from mud and through slow evolution,
2. All species evolved from a single celled organism that evolved
spontaneously from mixtures of "primordial ooze" and inevitably,
3. There is no god, no purpose in life but to be killed and eaten
by another organism.

In fact, there is no more proof of those ideas, than of the idea that a
great
number of species spontaneously emerged over a short time and make
environmental changes within the limitations of the DNA and viability.

However, since there is no research money for God, the Darwin theory
persists because the alternative is unthinkable.

JB wrote:

...
I lost your context then. The only thing in common between the skyscraper
and mud hut is that they have a maker and some plan. Maybe some wood. If
you are talking Chemistry, then you are getting specific and I doubt they
use the same mud formula in the skyscraper anywhere but in the flower pots.
...

Iron is iron, whether in a pure form, alloys, rust or other ferric
compounds. Silicon is silicon, whether in a window pane, silicon oxide,
or some other compound of silicon. Calcium is calcium, whether in
limestone, cement, earth, or other calcium compounds, etc., etc. ...

Back when I was in college, someone did some computations of how the
body of Plato would have decayed and been dispersed throughout the world
in the thousands of years since his death. They arrived at the
conclusion that everyone on the planet would have at least 6 molecules
from Platos' body in their own bodies (mostly water molecules since that
is the major component of the human body) ... I cannot verify the
accuracy of those computations--however, you get the drift--I am part
Plato! grin

Regards,
JS

In message , John Smith
writes
JB wrote:
... 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. 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.
...

If one were to tear apart a mud hut, and then a state-of-the-art
building, he/she would only find the basic building blocks are more
similar then dissimilar ... most likely, 99%+ of the elements in the
state of the art building can also be found in the mud-hut ... I see no
reason why someone should expect different in the basic building blocks
of life.

First there is a prototype, then improved designs, and at some point in
the future, or far-far-future, a finished design (maybe.)

We are all looking at the same "evidence" alright, the crux of the
matter is in the interpretation(s.)

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

John,
You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
correct it.
--
Ian

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

John,
You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
correct it.

Hi Ian,

Are you referring to the minstrel baiting term? It's bad enough to
tolerate this anonymous carnival of religious cliches with their
dialog of obscene pandering.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Hi Ian,

Are you referring to the minstrel baiting term? It's bad enough to
tolerate this anonymous carnival of religious cliches with their
dialog of obscene pandering.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Has someone snuck into this forum and now lies under the bleachers
bellowing for help? I thought I heard some inane and insane rantings
from an individual out of his mind with pain!

Reminds me of that poor b*st*ard which used to go around mumbling quotes
from Shakespeare in reply to technical discussions ... at least he is
gone for the moment, or so it might seem. :-)

Regards,
JS