Comments Posted By Tom
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 109 Comments
THE DEMONS ARE STIRRING...THE CANDLE IS GUTTERING
I'm going to assume for the moment that you ARE the spokesman for evolution. it really shows how creationists and critics of evolution are winning the arguments.
When I was in school LIFE EVOLVED period, end of story....now we don't know how life started, evolution only works on living things, but we don't know how they got here.
I remember the little fairy story about how some animal kept reaching higher and higher for food, and it became a giraffe.....evolution was caused by external forces....not its purely internal, purely genetics, now the changes are very small and minor.
The fruit fly example does hold up. if evolution now rules out large changes, then its only left with small changes, or its nothing. If evolution cannot change a creature into something else, gradually over time, and we've had thousands of generations of fruit flies to attempt this, then what is it? its nothing, just a plank of a religion called materialism, that must be defended at all costs.
Comment Posted By tom On 14.08.2006 @ 12:57
'C’mon, tom, admit it: you’re one of us'
sorry, I'm not a brain-washed lying stooge!!
Comment Posted By tom On 14.08.2006 @ 12:41
'No, not correct. Again, you very clearly do not understand what you think you are criticizing. Evolution, at least as we mean it in biology, cannot be the process that began life. Evolution REQUIRES the basic elements of life (reproduction with heredity plus variation) in order to function.'
so all I was taught in school was a lie? looks like more 'morphing' from evolutionists. so you take it on FAITH that somehow, just somehow, life started....then of course, this vast, all powerful force of evolution takes over!! I doubt dawkins would agree with you....but evolution sure is a slippery target....it means everything, and nothing....ok
'Plenty of evolutionary scientists do, in fact, believe that it was God that created life. This view is not science, '
only if you define science if purely materialistic terms, which is what evolution does. This is one of the problems with science is general. They want to be purely about 'science' but then they define it to encompass a purely materialistic philosophy which is hostile to christianity, or any religion other than their own...and then of course they deny they are religious.
'Yes, but this wasn’t in his published work and he made no claim about it being something he could demonstrate in the same way that he could evolution'
when has that ever stopped evolutionists? Plain and simply genetic changes within species is not evolution. if you want to say that 'micro evolution' is all that evolution is, then its not the traditional meaning of evolution...but apparently evolution is whatever anyone wants it to mean.
'If you actually understood the basic process then it would be obvious why it can only work on living things. Fire can only work when there is oxygen.'
again only if you can change the definition of evolution to mean whatever you want it to mean, and you do. I'm talking about the traditional definition of evolution, not your personal definition. its this grand force that shapes all of our lives and everything...and its of course ARBITARY. For some reason we can talk about the EVOLUTION of the universe....so somehow it affects non-living things in that case, but it can't 'evolve' non-living things into more complex forms....this makes no sense, sorry.....but I know, whatever it takes to defend your 'god'
the whole point of panspermia and punctuated equilibrium is to demonstrate how far afield the defenders of darwinism will go to defend their theory....as you are amply demonstrating.
'I doubt you could even define PE or explain its place in evolutionary history. Just like Cambrian Explosion, its a buzzword you’ve heard that you think has something to do with evolution being wrong, but you don’t really know much about it.'
tell me, do you know much about evolution? are YOU the official evolution spokesman to define what it is and is not?
'You didn’t read what was said. What was said is that it is a minority of Christians that believe that evolution is a threat to their beliefs. It is mostly only evangelicals and mostly only those in the U.S., where science education is weakest. It is YOU who is claiming that evolution is trying to destroy Christianity.'
to say that darwinism is not a primary component of the materialistic world-view is just ignorant....again you can't define things as you wish they would be. tell me Dawkins would not like to see christianity destroyed, and it is he, not YOU, that is the foremost evolutionist in the world today....like it or not.
'No. But if you think it does, then please, do enlighten us. I can almost guarantee that in doing so, you will badly misstate what the 2nd law even is.'
enlighten you? that would be like casting pearls before swine. I know anything that challenges darwinism is 'taken out of context'...yeah....ok.
'The really ironic thing is that you are so ignorant of what evolution even is that you don’t realize that if something like this happened, it would be strong evidence against evolution. The neo-darwinian synthesis is inherently anti-saltationist.'
again, then you may as well say evolution is dead, evolution is really genetics.
' fundamentalist movement called creationism. And they attack it because it promulgates all sorts of falsehoods.'
really? you mean its like darwinism? tell me about these falsehoods, like God created the earth and life? and you have a better explanation? and what about consciousness, death, sin, right, wrong, morals, etc (oops sin doesn't exist now does it?). You attack christianity because it is diametrically opposed to the materialistic gospel of evolution, which has to write God out of existence. You know it, and I know it...you can say its 'taken out of context' or whatever else BS you want.
'Dawkins does hate Christians. But then, so what? Dawkins is not “darwinism.â€'
come on, how stupid are you? do you think YOU are the face of darwinism? no, dawkins is, whether you beleive it, or like it. Sorry if Tiger Woods was doing steroids, then golf would look bad....thats just the way it is....duhhhhhhhhh
all your questions are explained by either evolution or creation. you get to pick and choose....at least for now, until you darwiniacs send anyone who disagrees to 're-education' camps or the gulag.
Comment Posted By tom On 14.08.2006 @ 12:32
oh and why is darwinism sooooooo threatened by christianity, and never misses an opportunity to attack it? Dawkins, for example, hates christians. Why does 'science' have to fight against faith? hmmmmmmmm?
I know, its all taken out of context, and you darwiniacs won't answer this question any more than you are capable of ansering any of my other questions.....
Comment Posted By tom On 13.08.2006 @ 20:46
'Sorry, I look at the world around me and just can’t accept the idea that the world just exists any old way. There must be some set of principles that can explain the unfolding events of this complex, yet seamlessly unified world. We could call it, I dunno…science?'
This is what I find so interesting. you say the world is 'complex' and 'seamlessly unified' and yet you beleive that all this happened by chance. and there no great mind behind the order. You think that order 'just happened' by chance.....and you insist that what you beleive is not faith. wow, you have far more faith than I do.
Einstein thought much the same way and he said:
'I want to know God's thoughts – the rest are mere details'
I guess he was too dumb to understand evolution.
ps:
'I think there’s a real possibility that creationism is a tool of Satan. Really, just picture a demon whispering in tom’s ear, '
you would know your master's thoughts much better than I.
Comment Posted By tom On 13.08.2006 @ 20:30
'By the wat: the reason steel does not evolve is because it has no DNA, and nothing to serve in its place, and does not engage in any form of reproduction. The same answer holds true for all other forms of inanimate matter. If nanotechnology ever produces steel girders that reproduce '
you really can't see the forest for the trees. Before there was life there was what cargon, inanimate matter? correct? But, somehow, evolution worked on this inanimate matter, and created life, correct? It could not have been God, perish the Thought. So if evolution could 'evolve' this inanimate matter into something as complex as life, why couldn't it 'evolve' inanimate matter into something far simpler, than life? Does Gravity just work on living things? so why should evolution, which as everyone knows, is all powerful, just work on living things?
'Also: it’s a small but significant point that Darwin’s little book was not titled “Origin of the Species†but “On the Origin of Speciesâ€.'
isn't that nice? Now when darwin was asked about how life started, didn't he say something about a 'nice warm pond'? Did he mention God? I know, he was 'misquoted' and 'taken out of context' thats it!
'You’re right that both Hitler and Stalin invoked evolution to justify their policies. If you read a little further, you will realize that neither of them understood evolution any better than you did (which is why Stalin was taken in by the charlatan Lysenko, and Hitler by the charlatan Mengele). If only evolution had been better taught and better explained to lay persons'
Thank you for having the honesty to admit that. The 'neither understood' part is kind of like what the supporteres of communism (that never had to live under it) used to say about communism. Stalin and Moa, never really understood communism, or practiced it in the right way. But of course, NEXT TIME, we'll get it right....of course they didn't add 'whatever the price in human lives and suffering'.
'No, tom, not everything is a mutation. But a mutation is, in fact, a mutation. It seems as though your arguments are morphing to evade each new fact'
really? so tell me how darwinism 'morphed' into neo-darwinism. Darwinism has added 'panspermia' and 'punctuated equilibrium' and whatever to fit any new fact....so I must defer to the experts (darwiniacs) about morphing!
'What really continues to puzzle me is why people like tom think biology is a threat to God. Most Christians don’t have a problem with evolution, so what’s with tom?'
Please post the quote from my above posts that you think demonstrate this. Didn't you notice my mention of voltaire and marx? lets see, the mightiest empire in the history of the world tried to destroy christianity, and they failed. Islam has tried to destroy christianity for 1300 years, and they have failed. Marxism killed millions of christians, in an effort to destroy it, and failed. Christianity is the largest religion in the world and is growing by leaps and bounds. get a clue, christianity will not be destroyed by a bunch of punk-ass professors HA
*shrug*
how did life come from non-life?
evolution
*shrug*
doesn't the second law of thermodynamics make evolution impossible?
no, evolution is much more powerful...all powerful
doesn't the lack of fossil evidence doom evolution?
no, evolution is correct, facts are 'malleable'
*shrug*
like I said, put your money where your mouth is, and PROVE IT! take a fruit fly and make it something else....should be easy, given all we know about genetics, and evolution is a just a blind watchmaker! put a few chemicals together in the lab and create a new life form, and then evolve it! simple stuff.
Comment Posted By tom On 13.08.2006 @ 20:08
For anyone with an open mind, ie non-darwiniacs, check out:
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton"I am not a creationist and do not hold an religious convictions. I can find no scientific or logical reason to believe or disbelieve in a creator and I remain open-minded on the question" (p 233). He lists his reason for writing the book as being "to sound a cautionary note about the extent to which ideological Darwinism has replaces scientific Darwinism in our educational system. My message is that the world is full of people who want you to believe in their 'ism'--Darwinism, Marxism, Freudianism, and the rest. Don't accept anything they say unless they can substantiate it with scientific evidence, however persuasive their arguments" (p 235-6).
Comment Posted By tom On 13.08.2006 @ 13:27
'No. If you would like me to spend some time introducing the subject of genetics and how it relates to development, I would be happy to do so. But I doubt you would really listen.'
Oh I understand genetics a little, perhaps enough to know when I'm being taken for a ride.
It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.
you are basically saying that small genetic changes add up to 'evolution' a new creature. it doesn't, plain and simple. Like my example of the fruit flies. They have a new generation every 11 days, and after decades, nothing...do I need to reproduce the above quote on fruit flies? Genetics only go so far, before they stop.
its really simple, take that fruit fly, and over the generations, make it 'xidshfw' whats that?? SOMETHING NEW...but you can't. because 'evolution' does not exist. all that you see are variations within species, and you hope and pray that somehow you'll get a new creatore (ie hopeful monster) please.
as far as the age of the universe, its obvious, but of course you don't see it. with an eternal universe, then anything becomes possible, but now the mathematics of proteins happening by chance make it impossible for life to have arisen by chance...oh and I know darwinism doesn't deal with origins....yeah, thats why darwin wrote the ORIGIN of the species.....come on.....
you see what you want to see. you see a cell and you see the ABITRARY force (or whatever it is) of evolution....others that are more intelligent than you or I see it a bit differently:
'The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.'----Chandra Wickramasinghe
'….no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation'----Sarah Simpson
but like Dawkins, you take evolution as a matter of FAITH:
'So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it.'-----Richard Dawkins
As far as evolution and society there is no doubt that Hitler was trying to create the 'master race' and the soviets, the 'new socialist man'. Didn't Marx want to write the forward for Darwin's book?
The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’---Sir Arthur Keith
you've already made up your mind....but PROVE IT...like I said make a new form of life from a fruit fly!! Or even better come up with a new form of life from a bunch of chemicals, go ahead and add a little electricity, like frankenstein!! this should be SO SIMPLE given all we know about genetics....but you can't.
keep trying to baffle us with darwinist bullshit...won't work, sorry!!!
Comment Posted By tom On 13.08.2006 @ 12:56
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle--Francis Crick
In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.--Ali Demirsoy
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence--Douglas Futuyma
Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected---Robert Carroll
And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism.---Michael Ruse
Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history… Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism--Douglas Futuyma
Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature--Stephen J. Gould
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question--Colin Patterson
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would not be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement--B.G. Ranganathan
It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all around the world-flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme--Gordon Taylor
of course all these quotes are 'taken out of context'....KEEP THE FAITH!!!!
Comment Posted By tom On 13.08.2006 @ 08:30
thanks darwiniacs for demonstrating your intolerance, and hate, toward anyone who dares disagree with your god......KEEP THE FAITH!!!
HA>HA>HA>HA>AHA>AHA>AHA>AHA
Comment Posted By tom On 12.08.2006 @ 23:12
