Let me set it straight as to where you evolutionists evolved from. Here are
the steps that you believe in.
1. In the beginning there was nothing.
2. Then, nothing exploded.
3. Rocks of various sizes went out from that explosion. This is called the
big bang.
4. Some of those rocks had oxygen and hydrogen which formed water.
5. Soon a fish evolved from that water.
6. That fish grew legs and walked out of the water.
7. That fish turned into a monkey.
8. That monkey turned into a man.
So although evolutionists say we are related to the monkey, we are really
related to a rock.
If you have any problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what evolutionist believe.
This is what is taught in the public education system and our colleges.
Those that don't think we were evolved from a rock are called creationists.
So next time you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over
carefully because it might be your ancestor.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:16:01 -0500, "Ric Trexell"
wrote:

Let me set it straight as to where you evolutionists evolved from. Here are
the steps that you believe in.
1. In the beginning there was nothing.
2. Then, nothing exploded.
3. Rocks of various sizes went out from that explosion. This is called the
big bang.
4. Some of those rocks had oxygen and hydrogen which formed water.
5. Soon a fish evolved from that water.
6. That fish grew legs and walked out of the water.
7. That fish turned into a monkey.
8. That monkey turned into a man.
So although evolutionists say we are related to the monkey, we are really
related to a rock.
If you have any problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what evolutionist believe.
This is what is taught in the public education system and our colleges.
Those that don't think we were evolved from a rock are called creationists.
So next time you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over
carefully because it might be your ancestor.



My only prob. is off topic spam...

OJ.

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:16:01 AM UTC-4, Ric Trexell wrote:
Let me set it straight as to where you evolutionists evolved from. Here are
the steps that you believe in.
1. In the beginning there was nothing.
2. Then, nothing exploded.
3. Rocks of various sizes went out from that explosion. This is called the
big bang.
4. Some of those rocks had oxygen and hydrogen which formed water.
5. Soon a fish evolved from that water.
6. That fish grew legs and walked out of the water.
7. That fish turned into a monkey.
8. That monkey turned into a man.
So although evolutionists say we are related to the monkey, we are really
related to a rock.
If you have any problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what evolutionist believe.
This is what is taught in the public education system and our colleges.
Those that don't think we were evolved from a rock are called creationists.
So next time you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over
carefully because it might be your ancestor.

As hard as it is for you to accept, everything in this universe comes from elements created by the fusion of hydrogen. But hydrogen can result in many different elements under conditions of enormous pressure. I choose to believe that this is the process God used to create the universe. God's creation is what we have in common with rocks, stars, and all life throughout the universe. Only the truly ignorant can think they can explain exactly how God created this Universe, but I think people with intelligence can figure that the total story was not neatly laid out in Genesis.

I pity someone whose faith requires them to abandon scientific reasoning. They need to closely examine the foundations of such a belief.

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:16:01 AM UTC-7, Ric Trexell wrote:
Let me set it straight as to where you evolutionists evolved from. Here are
the steps that you believe in.
1. In the beginning there was nothing.
2. Then, nothing exploded.
3. Rocks of various sizes went out from that explosion. This is called the
big bang.
4. Some of those rocks had oxygen and hydrogen which formed water.
5. Soon a fish evolved from that water.
6. That fish grew legs and walked out of the water.
7. That fish turned into a monkey.
8. That monkey turned into a man.
So although evolutionists say we are related to the monkey, we are really
related to a rock.
If you have any problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what evolutionist believe.
This is what is taught in the public education system and our colleges.
Those that don't think we were evolved from a rock are called creationists.
So next time you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over
carefully because it might be your ancestor.

Anybody can twist, distort, and mistate facts and established theory and make it sound silly. But religion on its face, without any distortion at all - sound even sillier - it is something from nothing without any rational explanation.

Anyway, you are conflating two different issues here.

The Big Bang, IN THEORY, was a physical process that is based purely in quantum theory and mechanics. It's up to you to decide whether you want to learn more about it, or just lazily assume a supernatural moment of creation. In any case, once the Big Bang happens by whatever means, EVERYTHING else that is physical easily flows from that instance, and is mathematically measurable. There's not much there to debate any more. The Big Bang has only a tiny handful of outstanding unknowns left, and otherwise, as a theory, it is standing up very well.

Your leap from the physical formation of the universe to biological life leaves a lot to be desired, and rather than science doing the hand-waving here, it is you superminimalizing the process that hard science seeks to understand in as much detail as nature will permit. Some of us appreciate the theory and natural processes that actually result in the ascent of life. Others ignore all of it and instead choose mythology...easier, probably, than science. You've made your choice, and I doubt if incontrovertible proof - which occurs every day - would alter your beliefs. In any case, evolution is an observable process. Not a lie, not a theory, but a fact.

In any case, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. Science is not there to tell people what to believe and what not to believe. Science is a process that asks questions, and then sets out to find the answers. Science does not always arrive at the correct answers, but it ALWAYS admits to making mistakes and it is always subject to correction. It never blithely assumes anything, and never stops searching for the truth. It tests, and retests, and retests again and again. It is the ONLY process man has to pursue the truth. Religion does not do it; gut feeling and assumption do not do it. In fact, far more often than not, they lead us to half-truths and complete misunderstandings that persist.

You can claim that testable, repeatable, observable science is wrong and that untestable, inscrutable religion is correct - but you do so at your own peril. To me, the scientific process presents a much more plausible scenario than the magic fantasy tale of the Old Testament, a book written at a time of superstition and ignorance.

On 6/19/2012 7:05 PM, Mike wrote:
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:16:01 AM UTC-4, Ric Trexell wrote:
[...]
That fish turned into a monkey. 8. That monkey turned into a
man. So although evolutionists say we are related to the
monkey, we are really related to a rock. If you have any
problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts. I
hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what
evolutionist believe. This is what is taught in the public
education system and our colleges. Those that don't think we
were evolved from a rock are called creationists. So next time
you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over
carefully because it might be your ancestor.

As hard as it is for you to accept, everything in this universe
comes from elements created by the fusion of hydrogen. But
hydrogen can result in many different elements under conditions
of enormous pressure. I choose to believe that this is the
process God used to create the universe. God's creation is what
we have in common with rocks, stars, and all life throughout the
universe. Only the truly ignorant can think they can explain
exactly how God created this Universe, but I think people with
intelligence can figure that the total story was not neatly laid
out in Genesis.

I pity someone whose faith requires them to abandon scientific
reasoning. They need to closely examine the foundations of such a
belief.




A creationist may not acknowledge that he is related to a chimp, but
he probably would admit that he is related to his own mother. "After
all," he might say, "obviously I share 50 per cent. of my genes with
her."

But that estimate is wildly off the mark. Actually, he shares more
than 99.9 per cent. of his genes with her -- because, in addition to
the obvious one-half _direct_ ancestry, he shares almost _all_ of
his ancestry with her in common, because _both_ his parents share
almost identical common ancestry too.

_Common ancestry_ is the only rational explanation, and it is the
full explanation, for the near-total agreement between the
gene-patterns of father, mother, and child.

Common ancestry is also the only reasonable explanation for the
astonishingly high degree of common ancestry between humans and
other mammals.

The genetic similarity of a man and a mouse, for example, is about
92 per cent.

It is almost as if you had a 100-volume set of the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_, with each volume consisting of 1,000 pages of very
small type on onionskin paper, 100,000 pages in all -- and then
compared it to another, unknown, encyclopedia, and discovered that
its first 92,000 pages were _absolutely identical_ to those in the
_Britannica_ (to say nothing of the fact that the remaining 8,000
pages had a lot of similarities too).

Could that be a random coincidence? Could the two encyclopedias have
just by some sort of luck, or by the very nature of
encyclopedia-writing, turned out to be _that_ similar? I don't think
so. It would be obvious to anyone not inebriated by Maury Povich,
Benny Hinn, or Jack Daniels that one was derived from the other --
or that both were derived from a common source.

Mice and men share so many -- almost all, in fact -- of our genes
because we share many, many common ancestors.

Common genes equals common ancestors.

The percentage of genes we share with other species is a measure of
how many common ancestors we share with them -- and that itself is a
measure of how long ago we diverged from them.

Bearing that relationship in mind, consider that we share 44 per
cent. of our genes in common with fruit flies -- 26 per cent. with
yeast -- and almost 20 per cent. in common with a grain of wheat.

That is proof as absolute as it is possible to get in this imperfect
world that there was a time, long long ago, when our ancestors --
and wheat's ancestors -- _were the same species_.

For even in a case where "only" the first twenty volumes of the
encyclopedia -- 20,000 pages -- were word-for-word identical with
our _Britannica_, who would be so foolish as to say they had no
common source?



With all good wishes,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

On 6/20/2012 11:01 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 6/20/2012 10:42 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
[...]
Common ancestry is also the only reasonable explanation for the
astonishingly high degree of common ancestry between humans and
other mammals.
[...]




I should have typed "Common ancestry is also the only reasonable
explanation for the astonishingly high degree of common genes shared
between humans and other mammals."


All the best,



Kevin.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

On 6/20/12 09:42 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 6/19/2012 7:05 PM, Mike wrote:
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:16:01 AM UTC-4, Ric Trexell wrote:
[...]
That fish turned into a monkey. 8. That monkey turned into a
man. So although evolutionists say we are related to the
monkey, we are really related to a rock. If you have any
problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts. I
hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what
evolutionist believe. This is what is taught in the public
education system and our colleges. Those that don't think we
were evolved from a rock are called creationists. So next time
you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over
carefully because it might be your ancestor.

As hard as it is for you to accept, everything in this universe
comes from elements created by the fusion of hydrogen. But
hydrogen can result in many different elements under conditions
of enormous pressure. I choose to believe that this is the
process God used to create the universe. God's creation is what
we have in common with rocks, stars, and all life throughout the
universe. Only the truly ignorant can think they can explain
exactly how God created this Universe, but I think people with
intelligence can figure that the total story was not neatly laid
out in Genesis.

I pity someone whose faith requires them to abandon scientific
reasoning. They need to closely examine the foundations of such a
belief.




A creationist may not acknowledge that he is related to a chimp, but he
probably would admit that he is related to his own mother. "After all,"
he might say, "obviously I share 50 per cent. of my genes with her."

But that estimate is wildly off the mark. Actually, he shares more than
99.9 per cent. of his genes with her -- because, in addition to the
obvious one-half _direct_ ancestry, he shares almost _all_ of his
ancestry with her in common, because _both_ his parents share almost
identical common ancestry too.

_Common ancestry_ is the only rational explanation, and it is the full
explanation, for the near-total agreement between the gene-patterns of
father, mother, and child.

Common ancestry is also the only reasonable explanation for the
astonishingly high degree of common ancestry between humans and other
mammals.

The genetic similarity of a man and a mouse, for example, is about 92
per cent.

It is almost as if you had a 100-volume set of the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_, with each volume consisting of 1,000 pages of very small
type on onionskin paper, 100,000 pages in all -- and then compared it to
another, unknown, encyclopedia, and discovered that its first 92,000
pages were _absolutely identical_ to those in the _Britannica_ (to say
nothing of the fact that the remaining 8,000 pages had a lot of
similarities too).

Could that be a random coincidence? Could the two encyclopedias have
just by some sort of luck, or by the very nature of
encyclopedia-writing, turned out to be _that_ similar? I don't think so.
It would be obvious to anyone not inebriated by Maury Povich, Benny
Hinn, or Jack Daniels that one was derived from the other -- or that
both were derived from a common source.

Mice and men share so many -- almost all, in fact -- of our genes
because we share many, many common ancestors.

Common genes equals common ancestors.

The percentage of genes we share with other species is a measure of how
many common ancestors we share with them -- and that itself is a measure
of how long ago we diverged from them.

Bearing that relationship in mind, consider that we share 44 per cent.
of our genes in common with fruit flies -- 26 per cent. with yeast --
and almost 20 per cent. in common with a grain of wheat.

That is proof as absolute as it is possible to get in this imperfect
world that there was a time, long long ago, when our ancestors -- and
wheat's ancestors -- _were the same species_.

For even in a case where "only" the first twenty volumes of the
encyclopedia -- 20,000 pages -- were word-for-word identical with our
_Britannica_, who would be so foolish as to say they had no common source?



With all good wishes,


Kevin Alfred Strom.



Damn, Kevin. We're dangerously close to agreeing here.

On 6/20/2012 11:35 AM, Ric Trexell wrote:
[...] If he was just a man, why did people suffer persecution and death to
tell the story of him? Were they nuts?





Plenty of people were willing to undergo persecution or death to
vindicate Cyrus the Persian's divine right to rule the Earth, or to
support the claim of the Pope of Rome to be Jesus's terrestrial
errand boy -- or, for that matter, to oppose the same claim.

On some issues, huge quantities of people do indeed appear to be nuts.


Pip pip,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Ric Trexell wrote:


More discoveries of cities and people form the past have been made from that
book than any other. As I said earlier, you only have to go back as far as
Jesus. If he was not here, or didn't do and say that things the bible says
he did, then the bible is a hoax. The new testament lays out the geneaology
of Jesus from Adam. It is where creationists take the time line for a
6000-10,000 year old earth. Again, as Jesus asked, "Who do men say that I
AM?" If he was just a man, why did people suffer persecution and death to
tell the story of him? Were they nuts?




Actually, there seems to be enough information to conclude that, yes,
they were nuts...or at the very least wrote the book to justify massive
theft and murder for land. The book even tells you how rape women
properly...


http://www.evilbible.com/

It's written by a nice Jewish lady and is without malice. 'Just the
facts, Mam..'


mike























-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP4gXNAAoJEGQ2h+1OL/Acp5YIAL6tvfGgOLiU51/9iHnZB1Va
pKjmSzPoVZsY6KqIzfe2Y5rA1RJWXkyYLDOGpInF5EpjWDFupF jg8w/tfs4UEhms
uIGBlX7ugwSzCpPf4F35xQUoQKKUTezdejjNVTiu63fSQZ/NrW8wA+5qV2wb9KGy
N7b2AqNHMo6IkUw/OLmycfKLIlpHBBG0D7bfhXaPiQ+wcGF5LCH4kvBzbEhTGJzd
OMwkY2Om5CZkw/Z+7A4Cpn92HJqrdXinW1V+MfJI21V025I8FFlTHXXFJHkqci1Z
f8cl4/fNvUm1YKY5J5peK7iGqzDty30f3dYkOJ0XF4uwU3czZaVx3/rhXXwfjW4=
=f1wu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 06/20/2012 09:29 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:


On some issues, huge quantities of people do indeed appear to be nuts.


Most people are too dead inside to achieve "nuts" status.