Taking Intelligent Design apart, in court

[46zilzal]

Nova had a great investigative show last evening reviewing a court session held to keep religious dogma (in following the Supreme Court ruling against it) out of the Dover Pennsylvania high school curriculum in the guise of intelligent design. In example after example, evidence was presented to back up evolution (the most amazing was the evidence that the extra chromosome lost to the great apes is exactly the same as the fusion in the 2nd chromosome of humans - shown here).

The Seattle Institute trying to pry open religious dogma to return to the curriculum of public education was so inept to have left several intermediate copies of their book Pandas to People where they actually just typed intelligent design over creationism in the drafts, then claimed otherwise. Did they look foolish getting caught there.

The Constitution states that the government can neither promote nor inhibit any specific religious points of view but these guys keep trying to sneak it back in.

[46zilzal]

They exposed this document and it's agenda as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[Tom]

The Constitution states that the government can neither promote nor inhibit any specific religious points of view but these guys keep trying to sneak it back in.

No, the constitution garauntees freedom of religion. A huge difference.
More people on this planet believe in a higher power and intelligent design than global warming.

You yourself cannot reconcile that if evolution is the only truth that global warming is part of that and that the demise of humans is part of it.

[46zilzal]

May I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Not pro, nor con.

[46zilzal]

You yourself cannot reconcile that if evolution is the only truth that global warming is part of that and that the demise of humans is part of it.
Comparing those two straight up is on par with the comparison of Betty Crocker to orange marmalade.

[Tom]

May I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Not pro, nor con.

A school system teaching is hardy a government making a law. Schools do not pass legislation.

[46zilzal]

Read the judge's ruling. A judge appointed by none other than the rutabaga.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/judge.html

[46zilzal]

The I.D. text. Panda's and People.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

[46zilzal]

No, the constitution garauntees freedom of religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, and 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or accommodationist" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

[Tom]

If the government cannot legislate religion, I hardly see where the Kourts get off defining it. The Kourts have enough real issues to deal with.

As for the schools, I would be happy if the outcome based liberal schools were able to tech reading, writting,and arithmetic. The rest should be taught at home. Just stopo pushin morons thorugh the ranks. Instead of awarding federal aid based on something as stupid as attendence, it shold be awarded on the basis of minimum skills tests. I realize this would dilute the democratic party, but hey......:rolleyes::lol:

[46zilzal]

If the government cannot legislate religion, I hardly see where the Kourts get off defining it. The Kourts have enough real issues to deal with.
How about the Supreme Court?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

also,The Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ruled that bans on teaching evolutionary biology are unconstitutional.

Seems fairly well defined at the highest level. Simple idea, right in the Constitution, of the separation of church and state.

[Indulto]

No, the constitution garauntees freedom of religion. A huge difference.
More people on this planet believe in a higher power and intelligent design than global warming.

You yourself cannot reconcile that if evolution is the only truth that global warming is part of that and that the demise of humans is part of it.I would think most people who believe in a higher power also believe in global warming, but attribute it to God's wrath rather than cow flattulence.

I personally think intelligent design and evolution should be debated in schools no later than 8th grade along with teaching comparative religion courses. God forbid people choose their own faith rather than remain hostage to that of their parents.

[46zilzal]

I personally think intelligent design and evolution should be debated in schools no later than 8th grade along with teaching comparative religion courses. God forbid people choose their own faith rather than remain hostage to that of their parents.
easy to debate: lots of evidence of the latter, none for the former. Even irreducible complexity has been debunked. There has to be a shred of credibility or you have a Rick's Natural Star situation. One does not belong on the same stage as the other.

From WIkipedia: Despite being discredited in the Dover trial where the court found in its ruling that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large", irreducible complexity has nevertheless remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design and other creationists.

One could say an infection was stopped by 1) God's will or the 2) the antibiotic I just started IV after the culture and sensitivity told me which drug to use. Lots of evidence for the latter, NONE for the former.

[Gibbon]

Curious a Canadian quoting American historical documents....

Our nation began with these stirring words in the Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation."

Now, 231 years later, they still ring true. We may envision the Founders as rash, rowdy rebels. Not so. Already accomplished in fields of endeavor, they were settled in character and reputation. They deemed their decision necessary, and their first thought was of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." They were men of purpose and principle, who well understood the peril of choosing to declare independence from Great Britain.

Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote to John Adams, "Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe to what was believed by many at that time to be our death warrants?

The central passage of the Declaration’s opening is the document’s most famous, suggesting the form of government truly fit for a free people: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Founders sought liberty, not license, rather than a loosening of restraints, a freedom to pursue right. The objective was citizens’ safety and happiness, later called "the common defense," "the general welfare," and the "blessings of liberty." The motto of the American Revolution were -->
"No King but King Jesus!" and "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,
"....we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Do we citizens, inheritors of this Republic bequeathed us, still stand ready to hazard even half so much?

Don’t allow revisionist liberal historians to rewrite American history. Plan your vacation around visiting DC and witness all our monuments giving thanks to God.

[46zilzal]

Curious a Canadian quoting American historical documents....


How many hundreds of times do I have to say it. I only live here.

All of that contributes nothing to this thread. People can believe in God, fine. That is a choice made in the home, not a school unless the parents choose that to be an option.

Wow where can I sign up to talk in tongues, or get drunk, as they seem to be the same thing...

[46zilzal]

When I was in professional school we had a guest lecturer. He was to speak on orthopedics but started his talk with a lot of religious mumbo jumbo and wanted to "lead us all in prayer."

Several of us stood up and quietly left the room which seemed to set him off. "Where are YOU going?" he thundered. Almost to a man the answers were "Away from you until you begin to return to speak on the topic you were invited to address. Our tuition is paying you to be here so we have the option of choosing what we care to listen to." After that almost 70% of the class began to leave until these guy wised up.

Unlike these school children we had an option.

[Gibbon]

...irreducible complexity has been debunked.... Nothing is so removed from scientific truth as is this statement. IR is the death nail to Darwinian evolution. Without a coherent rebuttal evolutionists dismiss IR with grossly exaggerate counter arguments. The very claim simple life forms can give rise to complex life forms flies in the face of modern Information Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory).

What if all life evolved from a common ancestor by means of gradual changes as Darwin suggested? What evidence would we expect to find? Certainly we would expect to find the fossilized remains of the myriads of ancestral creatures which lived and died over the millennia. At least some of the intermediate forms would have been fossilized. Remains of many varieties of present creatures have been found, including some extinct varieties, but the true in-between forms bridging gaps still are but shadows in evolutionary minds.

Abundant soft bodied remains have been found, so the conditions for preservation would always somewhere have existed. Why can't we find those important fossils which document evolution?

We might also expect to find evolution still occurring today. Why does it seem to have stopped? Geologists think the present time is marked by rapid change; environments are changing, so why are living things not changing? They are unquestionably adapting or micro evolution but this is not by acquiring new genetic traits {new information} as required by evolution. Mutations frequently occur, which damage existing genes, some more than others, but nowhere do we observe new genetic information arise by random mutation. Random mutations observed in laboratories worldwide ALWAYS leads to cancer.

Evolution of any basic type into another would require millions of innovative, helpful mutations which add new information to the genome, but these are nowhere to be seen. Instead of new types, we observe misfits and extinction, the opposite of evolution.

Natural selection can only select between variants, it cannot act on its own to create novel types, and certainly is not an intelligent force driving innovation.

We would also expect to discover a universal trend in science which leads to more complexity in nature, paving the way for an increase in genetic content. Instead we discover the universal second law of thermodynamics (http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm), which invariably points toward a degradation of quality in every duplication of information, such as in reproduction, and more randomness in every unguided process.

The complexity of life forms is so unimaginably great that we must account for it, and random changes in the face of a universal law can hardly be the answer. At the least, we should find a mechanism for evolution firmly in place. Mutation and natural selection are often cited, but these are deteriorative and {energy} conservative, not innovative and thoughtful. A theory of everything which has no mechanism is a weak theory!

Non Life cannot create life! Non intelligence cannot create intelligence. Nothing cannot create something.

[46zilzal]

Quote a single REPUTABLE University Biology/Zoology/Life Science department who backs the position.
http://ryz.gnn.tv/blogs/17967/Intelligent_Design_Debunked

[Gibbon]

How many hundreds of times do I have to say it. I only live here. :lol: :lol:

In the interest of fairness, I have not seen Nova’s two hour report. I’ve located a copy and will write a rebuttal shortly.

[46zilzal]

They are unquestionably adapting or micro evolution but this is not by acquiring new genetic traits {new information} as required by evolution. Mutations frequently occur, which damage existing genes, some more than others, but nowhere do we observe new genetic information arise by random mutation. Random mutations observed in laboratories worldwide ALWAYS leads to cancer.

It is truly difficult to debate someone so poorly informed.

A random mutation we see all the time: the navel orange.

A single mutation in 1820 in an orchard of sweet oranges planted at a monastery in Brazil yielded the navel orange, also known as the Washington, Riverside or Bahie navel.

Your education is sorely in need of review.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

[46zilzal]

60 Minutes reviewed this one.
Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.

Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because (a) people live longer and (b) people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation. Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i.e., that people with this mutation will have more than the average number of descendents. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

or,
HIV infects a number of cell types including T-lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons. AIDS occurs when lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ T cells are killed off, leaving the patient unable to fight off opportunistic infections. The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4 (or CD4 receptor); another is C-C chemokine receptor 5, known variously as CCR5, CCCKR5 and CKR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. Homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV infection and AIDS. The frequency of the mutant allele is quite high in some populations that have never been exposed to AIDS so it seems likely that there was prior selection for this allele.

mechanisms at work
A few mechanisms in mutation
Point mutations
Additions and deletions
Chromosomal duplication
Chromosomal breakage and realignment
Retroviruses
Plasmids
Bacterial DNA exchange
High level transfer
Symbiotic transfer
Transposons

[Gibbon]

....the navel orange..... All citrus trees are of the single genus "Citrus," and remain largely interbreedable. A mutation within the same genus is adaptation in this case cased by an outside intelligence - the grounds keeper.

[46zilzal]

All citrus trees are of the single genus "Citrus," and remain largely interbreedable. A mutation within the same genus is adaptation in this case cased by an outside intelligence - the grounds keeper.
Because some taxonomy call them the same genus has NOTHING TO DO with their genome. That method (phenotype) classification is very old thinking anyway. Knowing their DNA has shifted many to entirely different groups.
Because the mutation left the fruit seedless and therefore sterile, the only means available to cultivate more of this new variety is to graft cuttings onto other varieties of citrus tree. Two such cuttings of the original tree were transplanted to Riverside, California in 1870, which eventually led to worldwide popularity.

Today, navel oranges continue to be produced via cutting and grafting. This does not allow for the usual selective breeding methodologies, and so not only do the navel oranges of today have exactly the same genetic makeup as the original tree, but also, they all can even be considered to be the fruit of that single, now centuries-old tree.

Way off the mark yet again!!!

[hcap]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

I think the creationist view is a distinct minority of those PHDs working in the field. Similar to the distribution of scientists working in the field of global warming. Minority reports do have their place, but Intelligent Design is not science. Philosophy perhaps but demonstrating your Intelligent Designer requires a much higher burden of proof than your claim At least some of the intermediate forms would have been fossilized. Remains of many varieties of present creatures have been found, including some extinct varieties, but the true in-between forms bridging gaps still are but shadows in evolutionary minds.
There is ample proof of the in-betweens, and in fact watch the Nova episode where one was shown. Meanwhile the conundrum the IDers' face is ample PROOF for the existence of the Designer, originally known as God.
And we know the problems of trying to prove that.

[Gibbon]

46zilzal,

A citrus fruit is a citrus fruit. It cannot transform into a potato.
Variation within the same species is clearly observable.

Change from one species to another is pure conjecture and unverifiable.

[46zilzal]

46zilzal,

A citrus fruit is a citrus fruit. It cannot transform into a potato.
Variation within the same species is clearly observable.

Change from one species to another is pure conjecture and unverifiable.
Complete and utter bull shit, but then why am I not surprised. Your logic and understanding circuits never did come on. Too bad education opens up so many aspects of one's brain.
Are you even aware of the difference between pheno an genotype? What actually defines a species over a variety? I really doubt it. GO HOME, read for about 10 years then come back with some evidence.

[Pace Cap'n]

Consider for a moment the flying squirrel. That poor sucker must have a had a rough time, evolutionarily speaking, as he waited for his "wings" to fully mutate.

[46zilzal]

amongst hundreds of examples, here is one that spells it out like a Dick and Jane reader might.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060901_mussels

[Gibbon]

Yes hcap, no doubt you wrote post #24 on a devise which arose spontaneously over billions of years and millions of mutations. Invariably since intelligence itself has little to do with survival {note bacteria} Humanity itself, or a move to more complex designs is ultimately self defeating.



Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

[46zilzal]

It is entertaining to see one flounder in a debate. Go after the messenger again. It is typical when there is no logic.

Yes tell us all how the earth is only 4500 year old too, I thought that was an outrageous flight of fancy since we know the absolute rate of radioactive decay in stereo-isotopes used to date items.

[46zilzal]

Yes hcap, no doubt you wrote post #24 on a devise which arose spontaneously over billions of years and millions of mutations. Invariably since intelligence itself has little to do with survival {note bacteria} Humanity itself, or a move to more complex designs is ultimately self defeating.


Irreducible complexity was blown out of the water at the Dover school board trial by showing the EXACT same mechanism of the cillia (thought by these narrow minded visionaries) occurs in the the bug Pasturella pestis plague (old name) where half of the components are not there and it functions to puncture other cells.

[Gibbon]

46zilzal,

Now you’re being contradictory? Logic that evolved over millions of years?
How can you be certain your logic is not flawed? Based on what objective reason. I’m not attacking the messenger, rather those faculties which evolved along with its host.

Re: 4,500 years. Says who, you or some cult. Need to upgrade your reading material.

[46zilzal]

46zilzal,

Now you’re being contradictory? Logic that evolved over millions of years?
How can you be certain your logic is not flawed? Based on what objective reason. I’m not attacking the messenger, rather those faculties which evolved along with its host.
I am still awaiting a SINGLE reputable reference other than one tied hook line and sinker to some God squad organization. Can't produce one.

[46zilzal]

46zilzal,

Now you’re being contradictory? Logic that evolved over millions of years?
How can you be certain your logic is not flawed? Based on what objective reason. I’m not attacking the messenger, rather those faculties which evolved along with its host.

Re: 4,500 years. Says who, you or some cult. Need to upgrade your reading material.
The God squaders refer to age all the time.

[Gibbon]

zilly,

Stop with your disingenuous and libelous posts. Your side consistently makes personal attacks when confronted by real science.

Intelligent Design : The Bridge Between Science & Theology
William A. Dembski PH.D

Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement
William A. Dembski PH.D

Darwin on Trial
Phillip E. Johnson PH.D

The FACE That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution
Hank Hanegraaff

Darwin's Black Box
Michael J. Behe PH.D

Collapse Of Evolution
Scott M. Huse

What's With the Mutant in the Microscope?
James R. White, Kevin Johnson

All the above noted ph.d's have doctorates from major universities in the hard sciences.



I’ve addressed the age paradox before. You know a paradox, when your side is stumped by contradictions. Relabel an inconvenient fact a paradox and we’ll find a solution in the next billion years of evolution.

In a nutshell, the universe must have begun in an already mature state.
Adam and Eve born as infants would almost instantly perish. However, mature intelligent adults would survive and thrive.

[ceejay]

Impossible to change any minds who don't believe in evolution in this venue. Why? Because ID/creationism is based on faith. It is not science.

I know evolution occurs. I don't know why or even how.

[46zilzal]

All the above noted ph.d's have doctorates from major universities in the hard sciences.
And the majority of these are the direct result of the Panda people in Seattle. Find evidence unbiased by their agenda and one can still poke holes in it as it proves NOTHING.

You have to keep fishing a bit harder than that. 1859 this "theory" was first proposed and the genius of that idea has stood the test of scientific validation over and over since that time onward. The recent new evidence of the fusion of the extra chromosome of great apes being discovered as the enlarged 2nd chromosome of H. sapiens only strengthens what was evoked all those years ago.

Pure genius to have predicted a system when he had NO idea of how the information was transfered.

William A. Dembski is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. A banner school know for it's Nobel laureates!!!

Hendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff is an American author, radio talk-show host and advocate of evangelical Christianity. He is an outspoken figure within the Christian countercult movement where he has established a reputation for his criticisms of non-Christian religions, new religious movements or cults and perceived heresies within conservative Christianity. He is also an apologist on doctrinal and cultural issues. hardly a scientist.

All part and parcel of the Wedge people. Several of them have no scientific credentials whatsoever.

[46zilzal]

In a nutshell, the universe must have begun in an already mature state.
Adam and Eve born as infants would almost instantly perish. However, mature intelligent adults would survive and thrive.
You have been brainwashed to utter imbecility. How do you dress yourself each day?

Do yourself a favor and watch Zeitgeist to understand the pagan beginnings to all this Adam and Eve, virgin birth, etc fairy tale.

[Gibbon]

I know evolution occurs.
I know MIcroevolution occurs. MAcroevolution is fantasy.

Change/adaptation within an existing species happens all the time. Take one species and transform into an altogether new species is not science.

For God’s sake 46zilzal, the Cambrian explosion address this yet another inconvenient fact.

[46zilzal]

Change/adaptation within an existing species happens all the time. Take one species and transform into an altogether new species is not science.


Not science? then what is it a board game? Keep religious delusions out of the talk and there is hope for you.
No logic circuits on at the Gibbon cage.

[GaryG]

You have been brainwashed to utter imbecility. How do you dress yourself each day?Look who is talking about being brainwashed.....this thread is priceless. Thanks for all of the chuckles zilly....you are truly a piece of work.

[Gibbon]

You have been brainwashed to utter imbecility As opposed in believing a stone can become a living thing given adequate
time. Your eastern mysticism is shining through.

Re: Pagan roots: Again you’re making assumptions about what came first.

Hendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff is an American author..... With an advanced degree converted to Christianity after overwhelmed by historical data.

[Pace Cap'n]

Why must evolution and intelligent design be mutually exclusive?

[RaceBookJoe]

You have been brainwashed to utter imbecility. How do you dress yourself each day?

Do yourself a favor and watch Zeitgeist to understand the pagan beginnings to all this Adam and Eve, virgin birth, etc fairy tale.

I get the notion that you dont believe in God creating the universe,the virgin birth etc , but there are many who do. I am sure that for every Biblical debunking there can be just as many evolutionary debunkings. I think it takes just as much faith for evolution and things just happened as it does to have faith in God. Take the virgin birth , which you call a myth , for the virgin birth to occur a Y chromosome had to be created in Mary's ovum, since she didn't have the genetic material to produce a male child. For those of us who believe in a God who created the universe, for Him to do that would be child's play.

[chickenhead]

the closest we're going to get to an answer:

[46zilzal]

As opposed in believing a stone can become a living thing given adequate
time. Your eastern mysticism is shining through.

Re: Pagan roots: Again you’re making assumptions about what came first.

NO ONE, not even myself, ever hinted at that taking place.

[46zilzal]

Look who is talking about being brainwashed.....this thread is priceless. Thanks for all of the chuckles zilly....you are truly a piece of work.
TONS AND TONS of evidence supports evolution, hardly a thing (and that is full of holes) supports the other malarkey.

[Tom]

I think evolution might be real......zilly is regressing to the mean.

[Gibbon]

NO ONE, not even myself, ever hinted at that taking place. The entire universe; cosmological and biological evolution rests on life arising from non life. First the big bang. 4.5 billion years ago our Earth came into existence. After hundreds of millions of year, Earth was bombarded by meteors. Eventually, non living, inanimate stuff accumulated on Earth. This stuff self assembled and behold life arose in a loosely defined procedure called Abiogenesis.

A billion years or so later, this stuff became self aware. Then non survival modes came to be. Stuff like consciousness, intelligence, art and music. Attributes which are utterly ineffectual and counterproductive for survival. The kings of our Earth, bacteria and limitless other microorganism have no use for such advance bio features.

Yet somehow through random, inexplicable process an evolved ape mutated into 46zilzal with a technical skill to type into a machine. Zilly, it take far MORE faith to believe your self deceptions then a supernatural creator. Modern man's secular humanism will destroy us all.


_________________________
"Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life. It can be viewed as a special form of spontaneous generation (see "The Origin of Life: Philosophical Perspectives," published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1997, by Michael Ruse). Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past."

[ddog]

The entire universe; cosmological and biological evolution rests on life arising from non life. First the big bang. 4.5 billion years ago our Earth came into existence. After hundreds of millions of year, Earth was bombarded by meteors. Eventually, non living, inanimate stuff accumulated on Earth. This stuff self assembled and behold life arose in a loosely defined procedure called Abiogenesis.

A billion years or so later, this stuff became self aware. Then non survival modes came to be. Stuff like consciousness, intelligence, art and music. Attributes which are utterly ineffectual and counterproductive for survival. The kings of our Earth, bacteria and limitless other microorganism have no use for such advance bio features.

Yet somehow through random, inexplicable process an evolved ape mutated into 46zilzal with a technical skill to type into a machine. Zilly, it take far MORE faith to believe your self deceptions then a supernatural creator. Modern man's secular humanism will destroy us all.


_________________________
"Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life. It can be viewed as a special form of spontaneous generation (see "The Origin of Life: Philosophical Perspectives," published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1997, by Michael Ruse). Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past."

is "it" "alive"?

[46zilzal]

Self organizing systems discovered through mathematics research and reviewed in a very good book called Complexity by Waldrop, explains how organization occurs via what appears at the margins of chaos. The Santa Fe Research Institute lead the way in this research.
http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/complexity.html

Quote from that review:The Darwinian Principle of Relativity considers the court cases between creationists and evolutionists. It is a matter of blind chance and perhaps Holland can provide some ammo against the creationists. Gell-Mann wants Holland to do his genetic algorithm, an evolution simulator. This might be good since evolution was more than random mutation and natural selection, it was also emergence and self-organization. Everything operates according to a kind of Darwinian principle of relativity: everything is constantly adapting to everything else. Evolution biologists have called this coevolving. Organisms don't climb up hills, they chase each other around in circles. Coevoltion sounds like a recipe for chaos. Holland created Echo short for ecosystems, in which digital organisms roam the digital environment in search of resources to stay alive. A Virus. This could be an evolutionary arms race as one element must defend against another element.

http://www.calresco.org/intro.htm#org

[46zilzal]

Self organizing systems:http://www.calresco.org/extropy.htm
http://www.calresco.org/cal.htm#al
http://www.calresco.org/sos/complex.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

from the last one. "The following is an incomplete list of the diverse phenomena which have been described as self-organizing in biology."

1. spontaneous folding of proteins and other biomacromolecules,
2. formation of lipid bilayer membranes,
3. homeostasis (the self-maintaining nature of systems from the cell to the whole organism)
4. pattern formation and morphogenesis, or how the living organism develops and grows. See also embryology.
5. the coordination of human movement, e.g. seminal studies of bimanual coordination by Kelso
6. the creation of structures by social animals, such as social insects (bees, ants, termites), and many mammals
7. flocking behaviour (such as the formation of flocks by birds, schools of fish, etc.)
8. the origin of life itself from self-organizing chemical systems, in the theories of hypercycles and autocatalytic networks
9. the organization of Earth's biosphere in a way that is broadly conducive to life (according to the controversial Gaia hypothesis)

[kenwoodallpromos]

Too bad we have to pick 1 point of view to teach (CD vs TE, abstinence vs. sex toys) instead of teaching young people how to reason so THEY can chose one or the other or take parts they like from both!
It is still brainwashing regardless of which 1 view you force on students.
"re·spect·ing (ri spek′tiŋ)


concerning; about


respecting Synonyms
respecting
modif.

regarding, concerning, in relation to, relating to, pertaining to, relevant to, pertinent to, in respect to, with reference to, referring to, in connection with, anent, about, as for, as to, with regard to, in the matter of."
Has nothing top do with pro or con, just Feds butt out. No OFFICIAL govt. religious preference as to ORGANIZED religion. Generic religious activities are fine.

[ddog]

Too bad we have to pick 1 point of view to teach (CD vs TE, abstinence vs. sex toys) instead of teaching young people how to reason so THEY can chose one or the other or take parts they like from both!
It is still brainwashing regardless of which 1 view you force on students.

I don't get this part.
What do you have to teach on the ID side?
Either you believe or you don't.

On the Evo side, you have something to "teach".

I am not taking a side just wondering what you would teach.

The reasoning part comes from or at least starts from a set of beliefs , although you may reason toward something else.
I think that is the ID guys complaint, they don't trust the faith to inspire people to trust the big guy actually being out there.

Seems a little timid on their part as if the big guy is all knowing then I assume that teaching Evo or nothing as in commie countries will not overpower religous beliefs.

they certainly didn't need ID taught in their schools for belief in the big guy to survive and prosper.

[Hosshead]

Once upon a time ... I heard a scientist say:
" If people can believe God created everything in 6 days, they should be able to believe he can make everything in billions of years ? "

[Hosshead]

Reposted without typo. - (no question mark)

Once upon a time ... I heard a scientist say:
" If people can believe God created everything in 6 days, they should be able to believe he can make everything in billions of years ! "

[kenwoodallpromos]

I don't get this part.
What do you have to teach on the ID side?
Either you believe or you don't.

On the Evo side, you have something to "teach".

I am not taking a side just wondering what you would teach.

The reasoning part comes from or at least starts from a set of beliefs , although you may reason toward something else.
I think that is the ID guys complaint, they don't trust the faith to inspire people to trust the big guy actually being out there.

Seems a little timid on their part as if the big guy is all knowing then I assume that teaching Evo or nothing as in commie countries will not overpower religous beliefs.

they certainly didn't need ID taught in their schools for belief in the big guy to survive and prosper.
With ID there are parts of the bible that can be confirmed with science, but as far as "faith", I was in school asked to take the coincidence of evolution on similar faith that natural selection caused all varieties of species. Both theories leave some things unexplained.
As far as primates being off by only 1 chromosome, I wonder why white rats or pigs are close enough to humans to experiment on.
When I was in school no reputable scientist would try to suggest some dinosaurs were related to birds- we live and learn unless it's take it or leave it.

[46zilzal]

Very soon there will no longer be the need for an excessive amount of genetically different animals to use as experimental subjects. With the advent of gene splicing, human chromosomal material can be placed in animals markedly different from ourselves.

Case in point: Human growth factor. It can now be taken from a patient, incorporated into a mold, grown, extracted in an amplified amount (exactly the same chemical nature as the one originally extracted) then put back at a wound site to generate a more rapid healing of a wound.

[46zilzal]

Reposted without typo. - (no question mark)

Once upon a time ... I heard a scientist say:
" If people can believe God created everything in 6 days, they should be able to believe he can make everything in billions of years ! "

This malarkey presupposes that an animal just "shows up" one day without any intermediate or common stem ancestors which is just NOT the case. Over the fossil record there has been many a strong correlation, for example, that the three bones of our ear (malleus, incus and stapes) at one time were represented in ostracaderms, and intermediates, as three bones at the angle of their jaw.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.figgrp.5455

[46zilzal]

You state: If you view evolution as progressive from the simplest organisms to more complex. . . This statement reflects one of the most fundamental errors in understanding life. The study of evolution is not the study of progress. Evolution is the study of change – that’s it. Not better, not worse, just different. There are plenty of evolutionary examples where lineages evolved from “complex” to “simpler” forms of life.

[Tom]

Biting.....my....lip.
Holding......my.... left..... hand....away from..... the....keyboard.......

[Gibbon]

As far as primates being off by only 1 chromosome, I wonder why white rats or pigs are close enough to humans to experiment on..... Great question. We live in an age of true scientific enlightenment. Today’s Human Genome Project carries us well past simple protein markers and similar RNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA) structures. Geneticists have the ability to more accurate sequence human, ape and mouse genes. Geneticists can now account for “Junk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA)” genes and “Chirality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)).”

DNA sequencing, is the process of determining the exact order of the 3 billion chemical building blocks {called bases and abbreviated A, T, C, and G} that make up the DNA of the 24 different human chromosomes. Looking at the physical structure of A, T, C and G, we human resemble mice and rats genes to a greater extent then apes, monkeys, chimps or orangutans.

In other word, 46zilzal most likely evolved for an ancient mouse not an ape.



That seems bizarre: why is that? The reason is that, because of the relatively 'recent' divergence of the mouse and human lineages from our common ancestor (about 75 million years ago), an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes. http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20home.htm


Yet another inconvenient fact.

[Indulto]

Biting.....my....lip.
Holding......my.... left..... hand....away from..... the....keyboard.......Self-restraint or self-abuse? :lol:

[46zilzal]

Simple, things do not change if there is no selective pressure to do so: The nictitating membrane.

[46zilzal]

There's another way to show the similarity of genes in various organisms. Remember the lowly yeast, the microbes that raise dough into bread and ferment hops into beer? To demonstrate the similarity between yeast and human genes, experimenters remove genes that make proteins the yeast need to live.

What happens? The yeast croaks, that's what.

But when the deleted genes are replaced with similar human genes, the yeast lives. These results, says Kansas biologist Robert Palazzo, "argue that common molecules exist in systems as distant as yeast and humans."

http://whyfiles.org/095evolution/3.html

[Gibbon]

I’m afraid what you’re doing is compartmentalizing specific bio feature available across multiple species. Rather than looking holistically. The example you sited of the transparent eye lid suggests, what?

Eyes are well understood. Mostly a light collector. We “see” with our brain. Also, the heart, essentially a pump, crosses species. Eyes, heart, kidneys… the infamous pandas thump {valuable to a panda if you’ve ever seen a panda dine on leaves} does not prove change outside a given species.

The cross platform usability of many organs states the design WORKS. Why reinvent another template when an existing one has a proven track record. Eyes and heart work principally the same in a fish, frog, buffalo or human. An efficient design, more importantly does NOT violate the law of conservation.

If I were to take your example of alleged vestigial logic to its conclusion one may draw a connection between Henry Ford model T to the 1 million dollar Ferrari F1 Enzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo_Ferrari_(car)) . Both interestingly enough roll on four rubber tires. Both have windshields. One was made mostly of iron and wood. The other is constructed primarily of aluminum and fiberglass. Ergo, the latter directly evolved for the former!

Your religion is peculiar. However, you do have the right to worship your own vain intellect.

In principle it’s not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential. Even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration from a perfect creation.






___________________________
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. ~ Oscar Wilde

[46zilzal]

The horse is one of the best examples of evolutionary change over time.

[46zilzal]

Eohippus on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

[ddog]

With ID there are parts of the bible that can be confirmed with science, but as far as "faith", I was in school asked to take the coincidence of evolution on similar faith that natural selection caused all varieties of species. Both theories leave some things unexplained.
As far as primates being off by only 1 chromosome, I wonder why white rats or pigs are close enough to humans to experiment on.
When I was in school no reputable scientist would try to suggest some dinosaurs were related to birds- we live and learn unless it's take it or leave it.

I think you make what I think was my point.
This whole thing is not the end of the free world, you reasoned (?) your way despite what you were taught?
Is that what you were saying?

Also, I will try again, is it more unbelievable to think that something that could "perform" ID to kick start everything could itself have been ID'ed into "existence"?

I will admit, JUST THIS ONCE, I really don't know.

[46zilzal]

more holes in the HOLY answer.
http://appliedepistemology.com/Intelligent-Design-Disproved

[Tom]

More holes in the head!

[Turntime]

46, I find it interesting that you chose the well known model of the evolution of the horse to make a point, as that model is completely misleading at best. Stephen Jay Gould, in his excellent article “Life’s Little Joke” says it best.

“The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It could never provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant – for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.

Bushes represent the proper topology of evolution. Ladders are false abstractions, made by running a steamroller over a labyrinth pathway that hops from branch to branch through a phylogenetic bush. We cannot force a successful bush of evolution into a ladder because we may follow a thousand pathways through the maze of twigs, and we cannot find a criterion for preferring one route over another. Who ever heard of the evolutionary trend of rodents or of bats or of antelopes? Yet these are the greatest success stories in the history of mammals. Our proudest cases do not become our classic illustrations because we can draw no ladder of progress through a vigorous bush with hundreds of surviving twigs.

But consider the poor horses. Theirs was once a luxuriant bush, yet they barely survive today. Only one twig (the Genus Equus, with horses, zebras and asses) now carries all the heritage of a group that once dominated the history of hoofed mammals – and with fragility at that, for Equus died in the land of its birth and had to be salvaged from a stock that had migrated elsewhere. (In a larger sense, horses form one of three dwindling lines – tapirs and rhinos are the others – that now represent all the diversity of the formerly dominant order Perissodactyla, or odd toed ungulates, among hoofed mammals. This group once included the giant Titanthores, the clawed Chalicotheres, and Balichitherium, the largest land mammal that ever lived. It now hangs on as a remnant in a world increasingly dominated by Artiodactyla, or even toed ungulates – cows, deer, antelope, camels, hippos, giraffes, pigs, and their relatives.)

This is life’s little joke. By imposing the model of the ladder on the reality of bushes, we have guaranteed that our classic examples of evolutionary progress can only apply to unsuccessful lineages on the very brink of extermination. For we can linearize a bush only if it maintains but one surviving twig that we can falsely place at the summit of a ladder. I need hardly remind everybody that at least one other surviving mammalian lineage, preeminent among all our attention and concern, shares with horses the sorry state of reduction from a formerly luxuriant bush to a single surviving twig – the very property of extreme tenuousness that permits us to build a ladder reaching only to the heart of our own folly and hubris.”

[Gibbon]

Zilly, in post #70 you’ve outdone yourself. Bravo! That link exquisitely illustrates change within an existing species. Bacteria will always be bacteria, nothing more or less.

Genes are working subunits of DNA. DNA is a vast chemical information database that carries the complete set of instructions for making all the proteins a cell will ever need. Each gene contains a particular set of instructions, usually coding for a particular protein. Who is to say what dormant gene was awaken in a sea of "Junk" gene data.

Yes, the material {nylon} is man made. Even synthetics have a molecular composition consistent with elements of our universe. A synthetic material does not equate foreign atoms. Perhaps the 90% “Junk” genes hypothesis has as of yet an unknown purpose. Perhaps it's more than mere junk.

Separately, in the past, geneticists compared proteins of primates against homo sapiens. The analysis showed a one percent difference. Thanks to modern genetic sequencing, that gap has grown to a minimum of 5%. As I stated in an early post, Man’s template is more mouse then monkey.

Continued work on the Human Genome Project may show even more differences. Darwinian evolution is a religion. MIcroevolution {your link} is science.





_______________________
More than 95 percent of all DNA, was called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists, because they were unable to ascribe any function to it. They assumed that it was just "molecular garbage". If it were "junk", the sequence of the "syllables", i.e. the nucleotides in DNA should be completely random. http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

[46zilzal]

I have respect for the QUESTIONING Gould promotes, but he is simply all alone. TONS of evidence show the progression through intermediate forms.

[46zilzal]

You really need to understand the SEQUENTIAL activation and de-activation of strings of genetic codes that make specific proteins (epigenetics) and then are covered up by proteins (histones amongst others). If this did not take place, aspects of embryological growth would never turn off, i.e. the foramen ovale would remain open.

At any ONE time, in any ONE cell, only that aspect of the code necessary for the needs of that differentiated cell (i.e. skin over intestinal epithelium vs. neuron) are functioning and the REST of the genome is turned off. Very few cells, even the pluripotent ones of an embryo are anywhere close to full representation of their possible coding proteins and even then, the majority of the DNA is quiet as containing no coding sections.

Anytime one can transplant genes which code for the same structures into completely different species along the sam evolutionary tree it screams volumes of having common ancestry.

[Gibbon]

I keep forgetting to mention this:
Does anyone know Darwin’s full title of Origins?

The Origin of the Species
by natural selection

subtitled:
Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg

Yep, you read that right. A scientific synopsis for preserving slavery throughout the dwindling British empire.

Don’t think it’s about race? That’s because men such as Stephen Jay Gould, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins have painted an incomplete, some say distorted picture of Darwin’s work.

[46zilzal]

Just the NUMBER of chromosomes, of the alikeness via DNA has nothing to do with the complexity of the organism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms

[46zilzal]

I keep forgetting to mention this:
Does anyone know Darwin’s full title of Origins?

The Origin of the Species
by natural selection

subtitled:
Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg

Yep, you read that right. A scientific synopsis for preserving slavery throughout the dwindling British empire.

Only IDIOTS with an agenda NEVER get the title of this book correctly, It is On the Origin of Species. All the God squadder's, so worried that they are being considered a mere "animal" just have to put in the extra THE to make sure it promotes THEIR idea, and not the author's, that his book (which never brings in the idea until years later in the Descent of Man) was all about animals start to finish.

When you come to a debate, come prepared at least!

If you ever took the time to actually READ the book, you would know that in the English of the day, the NATURALIST was discussing races of animals.

hardly a promoter of slavery either:"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place." -- Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313

http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/darwin_on_race.htm

[Gibbon]

Such hostility. You need to practice some yoga for body and Tao for mind.
I’m not the one believing life can arise from non life.

Never said I’m not a mammalian animal. I have no agenda other then pointing out we humans are a separate and distinct animal.

Hope your handicapping life is somewhat more objective.

[46zilzal]

One side presents fact, the other, not even correct fiction.

QUOTE:"I have no agenda other then pointing out we humans are a separate and distinct animal." Just an animal: no different than ANY of the animals above the level of viruses, all DNA based and inter-related.

Unless humans were dropped here from outer space they are made up of the VERY same stuff as all else and are only a bit different. Animals nonetheless.

[46zilzal]

From the source above, the so called SLAVERY fellow.
Here Darwin is discussing the then ongoing American Civil War. The letter is to American Asa Gray, a Christian, noted botanist, and one of Darwin's scientific supporters.]

"But I suppose you are all too overwhelmed with the public affairs to care for science. I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. N. America does not do England Justice: I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, & I am one, even and wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in. Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God how I should like to see the greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished. " -- Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (June 5, 1861) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 9 1861 (1994), p.163

Actually most people forget that Wallace came up with all of this at the same time many miles away.
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/darwin.htm

[Gibbon]

If you ever took the time to actually READ the book This is getting to easy. Zilly, you should not have taken the bait. I suspect you have never read the book. In my hands this very moment I possess a perfect replica of the six edition of Origins, 1872. The very edition S. Gould doctored to “win” his PH.D in the now infamous Burgess Pass {Canadian Rockies} controversy.

I’ll quote directly, this is how Darwin not Gould closes the book
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the creator into few forms or into one…… “ Me thinks someone has to visit a library.


Unless humans were dropped here from outer space they are made up of the VERY same stuff as all else and are only a bit different. Animals nonetheless. Evidently you missed post #66







____________________________________
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. ~ Albert Einstein

[JustRalph]

I always find this creationism versus evolution fray boring. Does it really matter. To each his own. I am in no way a religious person really. I get very little from it. But I in no way look upon anyone who believes in religion as anything lesser for it. I think that in itself is the difference between Zilly and I.

I know people and have family that gain greatly from their religious experience and it fulfills them beyond anything else in their lives. I celebrate their happiness............. I don't wish to tear them down or castigate them as individuals of less knowledge or grandeur. They have chosen a path wherein they find fulfillment. To attack or belittle them publicly is a folie de grandeur at its finest!

[Tom]

I am certain evolution is going backwards for zilly....such obession and anger.
Is there a gene responsible for coniptions?

[46zilzal]

After the great documentary, "When We Were Kings" (Leo Gast 1996) was awarded the academy award (and deservedly so) for best documentary feature, George Foreman made the rounds of television talk shows. In one interview, he was recalling how the outcome of the fight had put a negative spiral on his life until he "owned up" to what had happened that night. He had gone through about a five year depression and it almost cost him his marriage. "You know, every time I looked at the videotape of that fight, it came out the same way despite the way I WANTED IT TO. Once I accepted the reality over the wishful thinking, I moved on. I was over-confident and Ali used that against me."

Same here. Three great debates have taken place since Darwin's book first came out. NOTHING over the years has put a significant factual challenge to the original contentions even though the creationists keep re-packaging the same tired, unsubstantiated arguments and get destroyed at each major interaction.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html. The first
major confrontation between Thomas Huxley (uncle of later
to be famous author Aldous) versus the Archbishop of Canterbury Wilberforce. The former made the latter look out of his element, big time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial. The famous "mokey trial" where Darrow destroyed William Jennings Bryan but a "stacked" jury ruled their pre-judged position over reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
The most recent debacle repeated again with the same result.

No scientific point of view is cast in stone, but at least come up with something original, and PROVABLE when you go to challenge what has stood the test of time since 1859.

[Tom]

I refuse to listen to Darwin - he is a monkey's uncle!

[46zilzal]

I always find this creationism versus evolution fray boring. Does it really matter.
HINT: Don't comment then as it might wake you up There are now fairly good drugs for ADD.

[GaryG]

I always find this creationism versus evolution fray boring. Does it really matter. To each his own. I am in no way a religious person really. I get very little from it. But I in no way look upon anyone who believes in religion as anything lesser for it. I think that in itself is the difference between Zilly and I.Well, all of this is certainly going not to change anyone's opinion. Just gives a certain poster an opportunity to vent.

[Tom]

HINT: Don't comment then as it might wake you up There are now fairly good drugs for ADD.

Where is the period after "up?"
Signs of poor education and low intelligence, to use YOUR words. Tsk tsk.

Please try to post in proper grammer.

[46zilzal]

p9quet o p9ut 'lna;lih vaj.

As a response, I was trying to type in tongues!!

[Gibbon]

Three great debates have taken place since Darwin's book first came out. NOTHING over the years has put a significant factual challenge to the original contentions...... BLINKERS ON.

You're thinking with a closed mind. I have personally witnessed a number of debates with evolutionists. Recently, “THE” Richard Dawkins {I know, you know who he is} debated John Lennox. Two towering intellects. One Darwinian evolutionist the other creationist. Both have enormous post doctorate work in their respective fields.

The debate available here -->
http://www.fixed-point.org/billboard/billboard.asp?ItemID=41
is 90 mins in length cd or dvd. Watching Dawkins, the worlds preeminent evolutionist, I cannot help but to wonder; is that all you got?









_____________________________
"Twelve experts gathered in one room equal big idiot."

[hcap]

I refuse to listen to Darwin - he is a monkey's uncle!Were you a witness for the persecution at the Scopes trial? Or are you just upset evolution has not proceeded in an orderly fashion in your end of the family tree?? :jump:

[Gibbon]

....Does it really matter.... JR, it is “THE” single most important question of your life. This question should consume your every waking thought. Well, when you're not handicapping.

If you're just another animal with no reason no purpose then lets eat, drink and by merry for tomorrow we die. That's it, nothing more.

If your “spirit,” consciousness, “soul” was designed by a superior {infinite} intelligence then what will you say upon your meeting/judgment. I never knew you?

It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us, that guides us. Purpose that drives us. It is purpose that defines us. Purpose that binds us. We're here because of divine purpose.

Non life cannot create life.

[46zilzal]

BLINKERS ON.

You're thinking with a closed mind. I have personally witnessed a number of debates with evolutionists. Recently, “THE” Richard Dawkins {I know, you know who he is} debated John Lennox. Two towering intellects. One Darwinian evolutionist the other creationist. Both have enormous post doctorate work in their respective fields.

Because YOU witnessed them they were great debates? I am talking about the ones that matter, the ones recorded in history books, the relevant ones......

From the little byte I am hearing it is not so much about evolution as it is atheism...You need a better reference than that. I would not call him the world's pre-eminent evolutionist at all, maybe atheist perhaps.

[Gibbon]

Scopes trial.... I was wondering when my arch nemesis would join the party. Were you two an I witness for the trial or did you study the fictionalized and highly inaccurate play and film "Inherit the Wind."

I'll be a monkeys uncle and grant you the beneficent of trust. Only an intellectually dishonest mind would state anything was settled. The dark side had acquired the services of superstar Chicago criminal lawyer Clarence Darrow.

In the worlds of Thomas Huxley - There is no greater mistake than the hasty conclusion that opinions are worthless because they are badly argued.

[Show Me the Wire]

p9quet o p9ut 'lna;lih vaj.

As a response, I was trying to type in tongues!!


You are really obsessed about the use of tongues in proper worshipful prayer. Or is it paranoia? Your reaction is very revealing about you.

[46zilzal]

The fellow from the Dover School Board trial is a bit more qualified to discuss the ideas.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller


Do yourself a favor and go to the Nova website where his testimony is listed.

[46zilzal]

I'll try again, in improper fashion, I hope.

,,a'p9ue [0 q8vc vj cg `canfbVDSs`h scugwx`

how did I do?

[46zilzal]

I was wondering when my arch nemesis would join the party. Were you two an I witness for the trial or did you study the fictionalized and highly inaccurate play and film "Inherit the Wind."

It took a while, 1967, but the verdict that the 12 uneducated farmers presided over was overturned on appeal.

In 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that such bans contravene the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious. Tennessee had repealed the Butler Act the previous year.

[JustRalph]

JR, it is “THE” single most important question of your life. This question should consume your every waking thought. Well, when you're not handicapping.

If you're just another animal with no reason no purpose then lets eat, drink and by merry for tomorrow we die. That's it, nothing more.

If your “spirit,” consciousness, “soul” was designed by a superior {infinite} intelligence then what will you say upon your meeting/judgment. I never knew you?

It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us, that guides us. Purpose that drives us. It is purpose that defines us. Purpose that binds us. We're here because of divine purpose.

Non life cannot create life.

Gibbon, points well taken..............

[46zilzal]

I thought the little "delusional" exploits into the inference in the title of a book being about slavery were not only weak, but frankly outrageous, and a book who's title you misquoted and contents that you have obviously NEVER read.

Darwin was a horrible writer with sentences rambling on over hundreds of words with multiple dependent clauses.

You are born, you live then you die and IF you are smart, you have your relatives use the ashes for fertilizer.

[GaryG]

You are really obsessed about the use of tongues in proper worshipful prayer. Or is it paranoia? Your reaction is very revealing about you.I was just thinking the same thing. He is the one who always brings it up. Maybe that is how he tries to insult Christians.

[46zilzal]

I was just thinking the same thing. He is the one who always brings it up. Maybe that is how he tries to insult Christians.
Just like the rutabaga, when something is silly, it is worth pointing out. Tongues, that is as dumb as foot reflexology.

[Show Me the Wire]

It took a while, 1967, but the verdict that the 12 uneducated farmers* presided over was overturned on appeal.

In 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that such bans contravene the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious. Tennessee had repealed the Butler Act the previous year.

The latest unflattering adjective used by you to describe people you believe are beneath you.

Some words of wisdom. PRIDE is an inordinate desire of one's own excellence and pride leads us to imagine that we are what we are not, and to despise others, in order, to exalt ourselves.

Meditate on the above.




*Bolding added for emphasis

[46zilzal]

The latest unflattering adjective used by you to describe people you believe are beneath you.

Some words of wisdom. PRIDE is an inordinate desire of one's own excellence and pride leads us to imagine that we are what we are not, and to despise others, in order, to exalt ourselves.

Meditate on the above.

*
Education is a gift. The people on that jury had not received it. Nothing else, as it simply describes a state of mind or state of enlightenment. Also if you cared to have read the Wikipedia reference to the trial, that was a direct quote from them.

[Show Me the Wire]

Zilly:

B.S.

Even in your eastern mysticism beliefs pride is undesirable.

[46zilzal]

lskdajf;l r38yfe odhb87958f jcxmncbajf

as I roll around the floor blubbering...Is that correct??

[GaryG]

I get the feeling that you roll around on the floor blubbering quite often....:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

Only if you fervently pray, from your spirit, in worship and accept Christ as your Saviour . Otherwise it is as nonsensical as you.

[Gibbon]

From the little byte I am hearing it is not so much about evolution as it is atheism...I would not call him the world's pre-eminent evolutionist at all, maybe atheist perhaps. Well yes he is a rabid atheist because of his other religion. He frequently interjects atheism in discussing Darwinian Evolution. Perhaps due to Darwin's believe in a creator/starter of all things.

As far as not preeminent certainly Wiki wouldn't mislead us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
First paragraph.






____________________________
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. ~ Richard Dawkins

God does not play dice with the universe. ~ Albert Einstein

[Gibbon]

Here we go.

Since it is absolutely Impossible to explain how life got the initial spark by natural means 46zilzal alter ego has posted this....

...researcher David Morrison told National Geographic News, "but we cannot exclude the possibility that we are, in effect, all Martians."

Panspermia, or the idea that Earth was "seeded" by life from outer space, is centuries old but until lately has not had much scientific evidence to support it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311317,00.html Don't have answers for massive holes in evolution. No problem. We are all SOB's from some distant space dust.

[46zilzal]

Here we go.

Since it is absolutely Impossible to explain how life got the initial spark by natural means 46zilzal alter ego has posted this....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311317,00.html Don't have answers for massive holes in evolution. No problem. We are all SOB's from some distant space dust.
Evolution has never been about the start but the changes.

[Tom]

lskdajf;l r38yfe odhb87958f jcxmncbajf

as I roll around the floor blubbering...Is that correct??

I find it ironical that YOU would start a thread about intellignet design and post bull crap like this. You and intelligence are mutaully exclusive most of the time. But since you worship polls, you are in the minority as every culture and the majority of people have religious beliefs. Your too much of an elietist to accept reality. But you have evolved into a useless troll.

[jognlope]

Please stop.. you're going to get me thinking about when time began...

:bang:

[46zilzal]

What all of this hubub is really about is the generic church's feeble attempt at CONTINUING to control people's thinking based upon their spurious and unproven doctrines.

Go back in history when the ruled countries directly or through another monarch surrogate. POWER, it's intoxicating.

Enlightened people began to look at the world around them directly, not THROUGH someone else's point of view. The EARTH was NOT the center of the universe, proven over and over, but the fellow who simply noticed a fact of astronomy was put under house arrest for attacking GOD. He never did such a thing, he just observed nature and reported on it.

Time goes along, women find that they have an emerging role in this life, but SOME religious factions fight this in wanting to retain the position that history has put women in: as being OWNED by their spouse. They finally have the option, not the requirement, of pregnancy, but this scientific finding is again a slap against GOD (never knew ovulation was divine. My wife never thought so).

Science finds that there is much to be discovered in the pluripotent stem cell, but this is a slap against GOD.

Much akin to the crazy Islamofascists, who blow up and kill, then when reprisals take place they complain that "You're attacking Islam," when one could just as easily say they are attacking brown haired men with beards.

It all boils down to people awakening to the mumbo jumbo handed out as FACT over the centuries with people questioning the dogmatic "take it or leave it" positions that these 'all-seeing' all-knowing' claim they represent.

[hcap]

Why would an intelligent designer create the unimaginable suffering that most animal species must endure? Does the designer find some satisfaction in random anihilations? Of entire species. Or does he say,"shucks, time to try again, but this time I'll get it right". You would think that if the designer had his (her) game together we would have a little less trial and error-not to say anything' bout how come he gave us humans-the top of his heap-such nasties as virulent bacterias and viruses. Hey, is he limited to only biology? How bout earthquakes, cosmic impacts and devastating floods? Why not give us humans some more antibodies for the nasties, and snorkel shaped noses for when we get hurricanes?

And if the designer has supernatural powers, why limit them. Why bother with an eon long tedious gnashing of teeth process such as evolution, and be done with it as in the good ole' 7 day creation story?

Once you postulate a "guiding hand", you have to wonder why that hand slaps species down including us humans perhaps more times than the hand really helps and gives some assistance. Much of the Intelligent Designer hypothesis seems to rule out the biblical omnipotent Christian personal God, by pointing to a not so Intelligent, or for that matter caring God.

Intelligent Design may not invalidate evolution, but it sure throws a monkey wrench into the New Testament.


"If there are any marks at all of special design in creation, one of the things most evidently designed is that a large proportion of all animals should pass their existence in tormenting and devouring other animals."
--John Stuart Mill

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." --Charles Darwin

[46zilzal]

Intelligent Design is not science, and has no place in science lessons, according to the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne. According to the Italian news agency, ANSA, Father Coyne was speaking informally at a conference in Florence when he said that intelligent design "isn't science, even though it pretends to be."

He argued that if it is to be taught in schools, then it should be taught in religion or cultural history classes, but that it should not be on the science curriculum.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/25/id_not_science/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-01-18-vatican-article_x.htm

[Show Me the Wire]

Garden of Eden was the intention. Man's pride (sound familiar), tempted to be like God threw the monkey wrench into it. Man caused the suffering. not God.

Yes God allowed it in deference to man's free will.

[RaceBookJoe]

You can call them unproven doctrines, yes there are things that are and always will be unproven....the Bible say "the secret things belong to God". But so far nothing in the Bible has been proven false...even many things that seemed false at first were found through archeology to be true. Think of how many books have to be change about something as recent as the Titanic...going down in 1 piece or 2 , of how many of us grew up thinking there were 9 planets, now only 8. Many things change through time as facts become known, at least facts that can be. I doubt we will ever have an answer to the question of why we have a soul or dont, the true purpose of life etc. There are many arguments for ID, young earth , life only being at most 10-20,000 yrs old. I am not jumping on your case...and I dont have all the proof, nor does anyone. I am a Christian, but that doesnt mean i dont believe in life on other planets...just because it doesnt say it in the Bible....maybe God created life somewhere else also. The Bible doesnt mention Giraffes either but I know they exist. We can go round and round on this topic by you showing your side of how things evolve and I can show you ID topics such as distance from sun to earth,earth to moon, amount of oxygen in the air, magnetic field loss ....slight changes in any of them and life as we know it wouldnt exist.

[hcap]

ID proponents have a greater burden of proof than the evolutionists. They have to provide a theory as consistent for the existence of God, the Intelligent Designer, as the biologists have for evolution. A losing argument.As soon as a guiding hand is proposed a conundrum of contradictions arises 100000 x more than the so-called flaws in an ever growing scientific theory.

Assuming ID is in the scientific realm is not necessary. Both can co-exist.

"Science does have some metaphysical assumptions, not the least of which is that the universe follows laws. But science leaves open the question of whether those laws were designed. That is a metaphysical question. Believing the universe or some part of it was designed or not does not help understand how it works. If I ever answer an empirical question with the answer "because God [or superintelligent aliens, otherwise undetectable] made it that way" then I have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. Of course scientists have metaphysical beliefs but those beliefs are irrelevant to strictly scientific explanations.

Science is open to both theists and atheists alike."

[ddog]

Garden of Eden was the intention. Man's pride (sound familiar), tempted to be like God threw the monkey wrench into it. Man caused the suffering. not God.

Yes God allowed it in deference to man's free will.


and so for one bad choice by "who" exactly, then that was it for everyone?

You can believe but you still can't change the earth part, nobody gets a shot at Eden here my man.

[hcap]

Garden of Eden was the intention. Man's pride (sound familiar), tempted to be like God threw the monkey wrench into it. Man caused the suffering. not God.

Yes God allowed it in deference to man's free will.What about animals who suffer many times more. Was it an antelopes' pride that prolonged a painful death and then being devoured?

Or these Caterpillars suffered from too much damn pride?.....

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." --Charles Darwin

[Show Me the Wire]

We have been through this numerous times. Evolution does not account for creation of life. So any teaching of evolution as to origin is based on faith, belief or opinion. Faith,belief or opinion is not scientific fact verifiable by the scientific method.

So why do all of your evolutionist supporters hoot and holler about a debate revolving around origin of life claiming Intelligent Design as faith and evolution as science? The fact is both are faith based relating to origin of life.

[Show Me the Wire]

What about animals who suffer many times more. Was it an antelopes' pride that prolonged a painful death and then being devoured?

Or these Caterpillars suffered from too much damn pride?.....

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." --Charles Darwin

Did not the lamb and the lion lay down together in the Garden? You do not have to persuade yourself what God intended, only what satan has perverted.

[ddog]

Did not the lamb and the lion lay down together in the Garden? You do not have to persuade yourself what God intended, only what satan has perverted.

I could almost buy the human pride free will thing but why did a fallen angel need to be sent here to torment us?
Wouldn't it have been better to just reverse ID that one?

For that matter does it say that angels need free will?
If so why?
Even knowing what they must KNOW that isn't good enough to toe the big guys line?

[ddog]

You can call them unproven doctrines, yes there are things that are and always will be unproven....the Bible say "the secret things belong to God". But so far nothing in the Bible has been proven false...even many things that seemed false at first were found through archeology to be true. Think of how many books have to be change about something as recent as the Titanic...going down in 1 piece or 2 , of how many of us grew up thinking there were 9 planets, now only 8. Many things change through time as facts become known, at least facts that can be. I doubt we will ever have an answer to the question of why we have a soul or dont, the true purpose of life etc. There are many arguments for ID, young earth , life only being at most 10-20,000 yrs old. I am not jumping on your case...and I dont have all the proof, nor does anyone. I am a Christian, but that doesnt mean i dont believe in life on other planets...just because it doesnt say it in the Bible....maybe God created life somewhere else also. The Bible doesnt mention Giraffes either but I know they exist. We can go round and round on this topic by you showing your side of how things evolve and I can show you ID topics such as distance from sun to earth,earth to moon, amount of oxygen in the air, magnetic field loss ....slight changes in any of them and life as we know it wouldnt exist.


so maybe all the other parts were failed attempts to create what we have here ?

[RaceBookJoe]

so maybe all the other parts were failed attempts to create what we have here ?

You believe what you do and I believe what i do. Neither of us will change the others mind. I find it extremely funny that this is on a horseracing/betting website. All "non-believers" must be the absolute worst players here....if you will all take less than even money on your eternal future ( if you are right you are dead, if you are wrong you are much worse off ), I can only imagine the crappy odds you would take on an eternally insignificant horse race. If I am wrong I will just be dead, if I am right it will be like hitting the pick6 every day.

[ddog]

You believe what you do and I believe what i do. Neither of us will change the others mind. I find it extremely funny that this is on a horseracing/betting website. All "non-believers" must be the absolute worst players here....if you will all take less than even money on your eternal future ( if you are right you are dead, if you are wrong you are much worse off ), I can only imagine the crappy odds you would take on an eternally insignificant horse race. If I am wrong I will just be dead, if I am right it will be like hitting the pick6 every day.


I assure you I am not the worst player here.
Believe what you will.
I was asking a question , no reason to flame out over it.
Like I said to believe out of fear because one may be wrong is not belief at all.

[ddog]

You believe what you do and I believe what i do. Neither of us will change the others mind. I find it extremely funny that this is on a horseracing/betting website. All "non-believers" must be the absolute worst players here....if you will all take less than even money on your eternal future ( if you are right you are dead, if you are wrong you are much worse off ), I can only imagine the crappy odds you would take on an eternally insignificant horse race. If I am wrong I will just be dead, if I am right it will be like hitting the pick6 every day.


oh and i hope you didn't find your own posting funny to be here.

You did have the free will to post it.
Also, how do you know that I don't believe in God from my posts on this thread.
Maybe not a personal "nanny" type of god , just maybe?

[RaceBookJoe]

oh and i hope you didn't find your own posting funny to be here.

You did have the free will to post it.
Also, how do you know that I don't believe in God from my posts on this thread.
Maybe not a personal "nanny" type of god , just maybe?

First I want to apologize...didnt mean to imply you didnt believe in God, it was meant more in general not pointing a finger. Second, yes that was a feeble attempt at humor...trying to tie this discussion with the overall website of horseracing, not a shot at how you play/bet. I dont have all the answers though I wish I did. These type of debates will go on until the end of time....whether there is Heaven, Hell , something else or nothing.

[GaryG]

oh and i hope you didn't find your own posting funny to be here.

You did have the free will to post it.
Also, how do you know that I don't believe in God from my posts on this thread.
Maybe not a personal "nanny" type of god , just maybe?As RBJ stated....you are certainly free to believe what you want. Just make sure you have the facts and know the consequences....that's all. You have free will....use it.

[ddog]

As RBJ stated....you are certainly free to believe what you want. Just make sure you have the facts and know the consequences....that's all. You have free will....use it.

Ok, the honest truth, I wish I could really fully believe.
Maybe I do but I have a doubt that I do.
How far does one have to "go" to really be sure?
How much of your life and actions should be different from what they were "before".
I know , makes no sense.

Used to be a Jehovahs Witness in the old days.
Talk about from one extreme to the other,huh.

Anyway, enough of that bleeding heart stuff.

I wish you and RbJoe well,really no kidding.

[Tom]

So if there is no God, and humans areda merely on more species, why all the lib whinning and crying when we go to war? It is, after all, natural. Man would have no sould, so there would be noright or wrong, only power, The power of natural selection. In the aninalk world, as the h-capped one points our, the strong devour the weak. Why is that bad when we do it? But then, with no God, the is no "bad." With no God, who grants us those "inalieable rights" to begin with? Whoever did, we can ignore them if we are more powerful.
You libs need to resolve that question, as if the righties who have all the guns! Our belief system is the only think, in many cases, why some of you here still breath air! If you could convince me there was no God, I would drop you before you took three steps away. :lol::lol:

Count on it.:eek:

[RaceBookJoe]

Ok, the honest truth, I wish I could really fully believe.
Maybe I do but I have a doubt that I do.
How far does one have to "go" to really be sure?
How much of your life and actions should be different from what they were "before".
I know , makes no sense.

Used to be a Jehovahs Witness in the old days.
Talk about from one extreme to the other,huh.

Anyway, enough of that bleeding heart stuff.

I wish you and RbJoe well,really no kidding.

Been there DDog, except I was Catholic not JW. I took a step towards God and he took a step to me. Even though the Bible states I am to spread the Gospel...that is one area that I still have troubles doing. Having said that, I talked a close friend who is Jewish, and he asked me how can I believe in Jesus.....all I said to him was to read your Bible ( Old Testament ) and it points right to him. My friend called back a year later and thanked me. Faith is both the most important and most difficult thing to experience. Not sure this post fits the original thread. I wish you the best and will honestly pray for you that you will find the answer you need or are looking for. If for some reason that you find the same answer that I did, my faith saysthat all the angels in Heaven will be doing this for you :jump:

[JustRalph]

7Egt21vJxWU

[highnote]

7Egt21vJxWU


Ralph,

This is a bit off-topic -- I can never get those quicktime videos to play. WHen I boot up quicktime loads. But nothing happens when I click the quicktime box on your post. ANy suggestions?

Thanks.

[Gibbon]

Go back in history when the ruled countries directly or through another monarch surrogate. POWER, it's intoxicating. This speaks volumes on the psychology of mankind rather any one religion. When you bring up history I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity. Humankind is flawed, corrupted and often times acts illogically. This in no way should impugn the Bible or Torah. Power hungry dictators have used faith as a means to amass power. A thousand years ago a great schism occurred between the church of Rome and what we call today, Eastern Orthodox and closely related but different on some key point, Russian Orthodox.

In the 1600's a major religious war erupted between the church of Rome and a bishop in Germany. A direct frontal assault on powerful Medici family and their vast controlling interests. Including compete control of the church of Rome. Later this protest movement engulfed all of western Europe. Many groups of people were persecuted throughout Europe. Some chose to stand and fight other settled and began colonizing what we call today, America.
Yes, my country was founded as a Christian haven.

Zilly, you may be suffering from cognitive disatance. You intentionally paint a broad brush. Place your hatred on the church of Rome, fine. They have much to answer for. The Bible is pure!

Enlightened people began to look at the world around them directly... Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Darwin {as I've quoted directly from a sixth edition copy of Origins} all believed in a Creator.

Variation/changes within an already existing species is science. Changing for one species to a completely new species is modern day church of Rome thinking. Untenable and unprovable.

crazy Islamofascists So you admit islamofascists are crazy? That's a start!

Why would an intelligent designer create the unimaginable suffering.... Yet another poster suffering cognitive disatance. Why ask this question and not the other? The entire universe is moving to a state of disorder and eventually chaos. So says big bang expansion cosmology. The very latest from Hubble Constant is a measure of how much space is expanding. Our universe is headed for a 'big freeze' and death consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

hcap, why is there so much order here? Why do we see hurricane katrina once every hundred years? Why not every other day? Why is there so much good in our world. You ask the chaos {suffering} question but ignore the good.

[Gibbon]

swetyejohn,

Quicktime cannot open embedded youtube links.
You need Adobe's Shockwave (formerly Macromedia) Plugin - not to be confused with flash. IE edition: http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/
activeX must be enabled in IE.

Adobe also has a netscape edition used in firefox and opera browsers.

[JustRalph]

Ralph,

This is a bit off-topic -- I can never get those quicktime videos to play. WHen I boot up quicktime loads. But nothing happens when I click the quicktime box on your post. ANy suggestions?

Thanks.


download it again and reinstall

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/

let me know what happens.......*(VIA PM)

This time during install, don't let it take over all of your video needs.........it will ask during install.........

[Tom]

I couldn't get it to download from the forum tonight - I'm on my other computer. I had to go to the webiste, download it, then execute it from desktop. Worked that way.

[Tom]

46......are you telling me this is a family reunion?

[Tom]

And is this our future?

[ddog]

This speaks volumes on the psychology of mankind rather any one religion. When you bring up history I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity. Humankind is flawed, corrupted and often times acts illogically. This in no way should impugn the Bible or Torah. Power hungry dictators have used faith as a means to amass power. A thousand years ago a great schism occurred between the church of Rome and what we call today, Eastern Orthodox and closely related but different on some key point, Russian Orthodox.

In the 1600's a major religious war erupted between the church of Rome and a bishop in Germany. A direct frontal assault on powerful Medici family and their vast controlling interests. Including compete control of the church of Rome. Later this protest movement engulfed all of western Europe. Many groups of people were persecuted throughout Europe. Some chose to stand and fight other settled and began colonizing what we call today, America.
Yes, my country was founded as a Christian haven.

Zilly, you may be suffering from cognitive disatance. You intentionally paint a broad brush. Place your hatred on the church of Rome, fine. They have much to answer for. The Bible is pure!

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Darwin {as I've quoted directly from a sixth edition copy of Origins} all believed in a Creator.

Variation/changes within an already existing species is science. Changing for one species to a completely new species is modern day church of Rome thinking. Untenable and unprovable.

So you admit islamofascists are crazy? That's a start!

Yet another poster suffering cognitive disatance. Why ask this question and not the other? The entire universe is moving to a state of disorder and eventually chaos. So says big bang expansion cosmology. The very latest from Hubble Constant is a measure of how much space is expanding. Our universe is headed for a 'big freeze' and death consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

hcap, why is there so much order here? Why do we see hurricane katrina once every hundred years? Why not every other day? Why is there so much good in our world. You ask the chaos {suffering} question but ignore the good.



Totally pure revealed word of the Creator?
And if that is yes then all the following would be opposed within or all of them would be brought about by Darwinian beliefs taking over?


infanticide, including by abortion
genocide
killing innocent human life
moral relativism
differential value of human life

[ddog]

So if there is no God, and humans areda merely on more species, why all the lib whinning and crying when we go to war? It is, after all, natural. Man would have no sould, so there would be noright or wrong, only power, The power of natural selection. In the aninalk world, as the h-capped one points our, the strong devour the weak. Why is that bad when we do it? But then, with no God, the is no "bad." With no God, who grants us those "inalieable rights" to begin with? Whoever did, we can ignore them if we are more powerful.
You libs need to resolve that question, as if the righties who have all the guns! Our belief system is the only think, in many cases, why some of you here still breath air! If you could convince me there was no God, I would drop you before you took three steps away. :lol::lol:

Count on it.:eek:


Sadly it would appear to me you are saying the folliowing, if I can paraphrase to make sure I grasp the meaning:
The only thing that stops you from "dropping" someone of a different belief ,even a trivial one such as a few political differences is that you know the mind of God and his values as set forth in the Bible?

So, if that gets most of it then that means that godless libs are morally superior to you since knowing what you have just said the rational self defense position would be to get 3 or 4 of them together and take a pre-emptive strike on you just in case you may change. :lol: :lol:

Oh and by the way , we do ignore certain actions of ours exactly because we are more powerfull. You got that one exactly right!

[highnote]

The Bible doesnt mention Giraffes either but I know they exist.

Seriously, how do you know giraffes exist?

[ddog]

This speaks volumes on the psychology of mankind rather any one religion. When you bring up history I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity. Humankind is flawed, corrupted and often times acts illogically. This in no way should impugn the Bible or Torah. Power hungry dictators have used faith as a means to amass power. A thousand years ago a great schism occurred between the church of Rome and what we call today, Eastern Orthodox and closely related but different on some key point, Russian Orthodox.

In the 1600's a major religious war erupted between the church of Rome and a bishop in Germany. A direct frontal assault on powerful Medici family and their vast controlling interests. Including compete control of the church of Rome. Later this protest movement engulfed all of western Europe. Many groups of people were persecuted throughout Europe. Some chose to stand and fight other settled and began colonizing what we call today, America.
Yes, my country was founded as a Christian haven.

Zilly, you may be suffering from cognitive disatance. You intentionally paint a broad brush. Place your hatred on the church of Rome, fine. They have much to answer for. The Bible is pure!

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Darwin {as I've quoted directly from a sixth edition copy of Origins} all believed in a Creator.

Variation/changes within an already existing species is science. Changing for one species to a completely new species is modern day church of Rome thinking. Untenable and unprovable.

So you admit islamofascists are crazy? That's a start!

Yet another poster suffering cognitive disatance. Why ask this question and not the other? The entire universe is moving to a state of disorder and eventually chaos. So says big bang expansion cosmology. The very latest from Hubble Constant is a measure of how much space is expanding. Our universe is headed for a 'big freeze' and death consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

hcap, why is there so much order here? Why do we see hurricane katrina once every hundred years? Why not every other day? Why is there so much good in our world. You ask the chaos {suffering} question but ignore the good.

Katrina ever hundred years , are you serious on this one?
So only huge killer storms that happen to America(Gods country) count?
The rest of the world as to storms doesn't count in this?

If we see huge storms somewhere in the world every week/month/year that proves "order"?

And the timeline at which disorder arises is when exactly?

As to Islamofascists , they are no crazier than many in the "pure" Bible were.
They are just following their revealed truth interpretation.
Distorted though you may see it as.

[RaceBookJoe]

Seriously, how do you know giraffes exist?

Because I saw them evolve from my sea monkey kit i bought out of a comic book :lol:

[Gibbon]

ddog,

Your agenda is blinding. Perhaps if you rephrase that incoherent post I may better respond.

In the mean time.....The natural order of things is to drift toward disorder and chaos. Order and any level of consistency is the aberration. What you should be asking yourself is why there's any matter/energy at all in this universe. At the instant of the Big Bang our universe had a virtual infinite possible arrangement of atoms/energy. The odds of anything forming, anything at all is akin to winning the pick six everyday for the rest of your life. Many physicists {cosmological evolutionists} have point blank stated in moments of lucidity, it does appear our universe is finely tuned for life.

Katrina ever hundred years , are you serious on this one?Was not meant to be taken in a wooden literal sense you high school drop out. Rather the question as to why it doesn't happen every day. Change is the only certainty so why are there long periods of calm. That is the great mystery.

In evolutionary biology there have been no less than 3 major extinction and at least 8 minor ones over the past 300 million years. Of course dino's are wildly known, however that one extinction is largely insignificant to the many and far more relevant insect annihilations. Yet there have been large pockets of global stability. Why?

Currently, talk around the globe is GW. No not Bush – Global warming. In any one hundred thousand epic of earth time there has been wild gyrations in earth's atmosphere. Yet the past ten thousand years have shown to be inconceivable mild. Why?

Additionally, according to earth evolution we are long overdue of a pole shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_theory

And every two hundred thousand years the north and south poles reverse polarity. We are also long overdue for this globally catastrophic event. I joke not – far more consequences than something as tame as GW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

The question you have missed is why there are moments of tranquility {no Katrinas, no earthquakes or tsunamis} on Earth?

As to Islamofascists , they are no crazier than many in the "pure" Bible were. Once again, your posts are agenda driven. In the Christian bible, revenge, premeditated murder, harming innocence are strictly forbidden.

Killing in defense of ones life or protecting loved ones is unfortunately, sometimes necessary. Think of it this way: the police are in certain situations authorized to use deadly force in preservation and protection of 'we the people.'

[highnote]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn
Seriously, how do you know giraffes exist?



Because I saw them evolve from my sea monkey kit i bought out of a comic book

That sounds seriously sarcastic. :D

[highnote]

The natural order of things is to drift toward disorder and chaos.

What "things" are you talking about drifting toward disorder and chaos?

A gas in a vacuum for example tends toward dispersion. That is, it doesn't all collect in one corner in a nice neat row. It tends to fill the vacuum. The fact that it doesn't coagulate into some shapely mass is hardly what I'd call chaos and disorder.


Order and any level of consistency is the aberration.

I think it depends on how one defines order and consistency. Just what is it that is orderly and consistent? Can you give me an example?


What you should be asking yourself is why there's any matter/energy at all in this universe.


That's a good question, but one answer is probably as good as the next. Who is to say that any answer to that question is right or wrong?


At the instant of the Big Bang our universe had a virtual infinite possible arrangement of atoms/energy.


Assuming there was a big bang. But let's assume there was. Then what happened before the big bang -- maybe an infinite series of big bangs? Maybe we are in the middle of one of a series of infinite big bangs? Or maybe at the begining? Or maybe the end? I doubt anyone alive knows. But there are plenty of people trying to find out.

The odds of anything forming, anything at all is akin to winning the pick six everyday for the rest of your life.

If I pick every possible combination every day I could win. But that would be pretty boring.

Maybe the formation of "things" is quite common after a big bang?


Many physicists {cosmological evolutionists} have point blank stated in moments of lucidity, it does appear our universe is finely tuned for life.

Just because they say it doesn't mean it's true.



Change is the only certainty so why are there long periods of calm.


Change. What is "change"? How long is a long period of calm?

That is the great mystery.


No. The great mystery is "Why am I taking time to respond to this posting when I have so many other important things to do? :D




In any one hundred thousand epic of earth time there has been wild gyrations in earth's atmosphere. Yet the past ten thousand years have shown to be inconceivable mild. Why?

10,000 years doesn't seem like a long time. If I live to be 100 then that is only 100 lifetimes. When it is put in that perspective it doesn't seem like a long time to me.




And every two hundred thousand years the north and south poles reverse polarity. We are also long overdue for this globally catastrophic event.

How do you know it is going to be catastrophic?



I joke not – far more consequences than something as tame as GW.

Maybe we are experiencing "climate change" and not global warming?




In the Christian bible, [.....] harming innocence are strictly forbidden.

If that's true then why do Christians wage war? Does the bible allow for a Christian nation to drop bombs in places where it is known with near certainty that innocent people will die?





Killing in defense of ones life or protecting loved ones is unfortunately, sometimes necessary.

Tell that to a Jesuit priest or an Amish person and see if they agree with you.

Think of it this way: the police are in certain situations authorized to use deadly force in preservation and protection of 'we the people'.

If the majority of people followed the 10 commandments or the teachings of Jesus the use of deadly force probably would not be used or necessary.

The fifth commandment: "(Roman Catholic) You shall not kill / (Lutheran) You shall not murder" .

I follow the Roman Catholic version. It doesn't say "You shall not kill except when...." It's pretty clear. You shall not kill.

As a Catholic, I'm certainly not going to tell a Lutheran what to think. Their belief is as valid as mine.

I wonder though... growing up as a Methodist we learned "Thou shall not kill". I never heard anything but "Thou shall not kill".

When did it become "You shall not murder"?

[Pell Mell]

As an Agnostic I subscribe to none of the "Theories" presented here. However, when I do consider questions in my mind concerning religion and evolution I always come back to a couple of quotes from a couple of men whom I would consider at least as smart as 46: Einstein, when asked about God; "There is too much order in the universe for it to have been accidental".

Hawkings; "There is no beginning and there is no end, it just is."

One question I do have; what drives a person like 46 to try to convert others to his way of thinking? It even creeps into his handicapping, especially his micro managing of everything under the sun. The saying about not being able to see the forest because of the trees was coined with 46 in mind.:bang:

[Show Me the Wire]

.........

One question I do have; what drives a person like 46 to try to convert others to his way of thinking? It even creeps into his handicapping, especially his micro managing of everything under the sun. The saying about not being able to see the forest because of the trees was coined with 46 in mind.:bang:

Pell Mell:

Good question and point.

Misery loves company, nuff said.

[Turntime]

Let's go back to the first post. The crux of the matter is whether or not ID should be allowed in science classrooms as part of a forced curriculum. The answer is and always should be an emphatic no. This has nothing to do with stifling freedom of thought, as scientists have no axe to grind and simply present theories that explain the facts of the natural world. You never hear of a scientist bursting into a Bible study class demanding equal time. Yet this is exactly what some communities are attempting to do in the science class with ID. This clearly shows that it is the ID camp that is trying to suppress academic freedom , and not the other way around as some would suggest. ID is simply creationism dressed up to be science, which it can never be because it invokes supernatural causes. Although impossible to disprove, it's a very weak theory at best.

This is the point we should be discussing. Confusing our children by injecting non-science into the science classroom does them a great academic disservice. Let them learn about science and let them learn about religion, allowing them to chose their own path.

[Show Me the Wire]

Turntime:

Good point I believe schools should teach evolution. And I whole heartedly agree about allowing children to choose their own path after receiving appropriate guidance.

The crux of the controversy is how evolution is presented to the children. It is implied evolution, as it relates to origin of life and man, as scientific fact. This is flawed inappropriate guidance. Choices made by these children will be based on faulty ideas. That is the problem.

[Tom]

After we get all our children literate, and able to meet minimum skills requriements in reading, writning, arithmetic, then we can dicuss evolution and science. Teach the poor bastards how to make a living and think for themselves.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sadly it would appear to me you are saying the folliowing, if I can paraphrase to make sure I grasp the meaning:
The only thing that stops you from "dropping" someone of a different belief ,even a trivial one such as a few political differences is that you know the mind of God and his values as set forth in the Bible?

So, if that gets most of it then that means that godless libs are morally superior to you since knowing what you have just said the rational self defense position would be to get 3 or 4 of them together and take a pre-emptive strike on you just in case you may change. :lol: :lol:

Oh and by the way , we do ignore certain actions of ours exactly because we are more powerfull. You got that one exactly right!

I am interjecting. I believe you have incorrectly paraphrased Tom. Tom's statement has nothing to do about dropping someone solely to differing beliefs.

It is just you can't have it both ways. If life is random and there is nothingness when life expires, then life is not sacred and it is disposable. The fittest should survive at the expense of the weaker. If I accept this precept than killing someone for my own pleasure of physical gain is the correct and appropriate behavior. Anyone operating under this philosophy of random life that champions the sanctity of life totally contradicts the philosophy and is not fit to survive.

The only reasons, one would claim sanctity of random life and nothingness after expiration, are because that particular person is to weak to survive against the stronger (fittest) and he wants to preserve his meaningless life through the help of the stronger or that person really knows life is not random or meaningless.

[Tom]

I have no respect for ROCBU's. :D

[highnote]

The crux of the controversy is how evolution is presented to the children. It is implied evolution, as it relates to origin of life and man, as scientific fact. This is flawed inappropriate guidance. Choices made by these children will be based on faulty ideas. That is the problem.

I was never taught evolution was fact. I was taught it was a theory. Growing up we were always presented with evolution theory in school and taught religious philosophy on Sunday. And I am certain that we received more hours of education in religion than we did evolution theory in the classroom.

So I don't have a problem keeping them separate. The system seems to have worked.

Besides, which version of creationism are you going to teach? Christian, Buddist, Hindu, etc? There are only so many hours in our kids' school career. I'd rather see them focus on the basics. Society needs well educated people. It's a lot easier for undereducated students to become preachers than it is for them to become top notch scientists. But a well educated student can be still be a preacher -- if he or she so chooses.

I agree with Tom -- let's focus on the basics while our kids are young and then later they can be introduced to advanced concepts. With a little luck they will all become critical thinkers and be able to make up their own minds.

[Show Me the Wire]

So why waste time teaching a theory? I agree teach good old civics, give them a purpose.

I am delighted your teacher was enlightened enough to make you understand evolution is a theory and not fact. Sad to say not all teachers are that enlightened or dedicated to teaching the truth instead of agendas.

Also, I am not advocating teaching Intelligent Design as science. I am advocating the correct teaching of evolution theory.

Instead of Intelligent Design I would rather see classical philosophy taught. Let the children learn critical thinking, while pondering the meaning of life. Philosophy begot science and that is a good place to start.

[46zilzal]

One question I do have; what drives a person like 46 to try to convert others to his way of thinking? It even creeps into his handicapping, especially his micro managing of everything under the sun. The saying about not being able to see the forest because of the trees was coined with 46 in mind.

I don't give a poop what people think about anything except when teaching the young mind outright hogwash=Intelligent design. My wife was brought up in the "Bible belt" of Alberta and was taught all manner of religious B.S. in place of science. She laments that time in her education as wasted.

Free thinking people have enough to "re-learn" as it is without heaping total bull shit in their curriculum.

[highnote]

So why waste time teaching a theory?

I think that's a rhetorical question, right? I'll take a shot at answering it.

Theory of Relativity. Theory of Gravity. to name two.

Lots of reasons to teach them. We don't know if Relativity holds at the moment of the Big Bang. To solve the Unified Field Theory may require thinking about more than 4 dimensions of reality. If there are more than 4 dimensions does Relativity hold? We do know the theory can be verified by enough different scientists in a "normal" environment that we can assume it is stable in a "normal" environment and is therefore useful. The atomic bomb was developed because of Relativity. It can be argued whether or not that is useful.

Same with Gravity. We may not understand everything about it -- or even "why" it works. But we understand it well enough to teach it.

That is why theories are taught. They are sound enough and passed enough muster to be considered worthy of further study. Does that mean they're correct or will never be proved wrong? No. But until something better comes along they are useful.





I am delighted your teacher was enlightened enough to make you understand evolution is a theory and not fact.

I haven't followed the Theory too much lately. Is it still a theory or has enough evidence been gathered to consider it a fact. I don't know why it is such a big deal to believe that we and other primates share a common ancestry. We sure share many similarities.

Sad to say not all teachers are that enlightened or dedicated to teaching the truth instead of agendas.

I had my share of awful ones.


Also, I am not advocating teaching Intelligent Design as science. I am advocating the correct teaching of evolution theory.

What is the correct teaching of evolution theory?

Philosophy begot science and that is a good place to start.

Agreed.

[ddog]

ddog,

Your agenda is blinding. Perhaps if you rephrase that incoherent post I may better respond.

In the mean time.....The natural order of things is to drift toward disorder and chaos. Order and any level of consistency is the aberration. What you should be asking yourself is why there's any matter/energy at all in this universe. At the instant of the Big Bang our universe had a virtual infinite possible arrangement of atoms/energy. The odds of anything forming, anything at all is akin to winning the pick six everyday for the rest of your life. Many physicists {cosmological evolutionists} have point blank stated in moments of lucidity, it does appear our universe is finely tuned for life.

Was not meant to be taken in a wooden literal sense you high school drop out. Rather the question as to why it doesn't happen every day. Change is the only certainty so why are there long periods of calm. That is the great mystery.

In evolutionary biology there have been no less than 3 major extinction and at least 8 minor ones over the past 300 million years. Of course dino's are wildly known, however that one extinction is largely insignificant to the many and far more relevant insect annihilations. Yet there have been large pockets of global stability. Why?

Currently, talk around the globe is GW. No not Bush – Global warming. In any one hundred thousand epic of earth time there has been wild gyrations in earth's atmosphere. Yet the past ten thousand years have shown to be inconceivable mild. Why?

Additionally, according to earth evolution we are long overdue of a pole shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_theory

And every two hundred thousand years the north and south poles reverse polarity. We are also long overdue for this globally catastrophic event. I joke not – far more consequences than something as tame as GW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

The question you have missed is why there are moments of tranquility {no Katrinas, no earthquakes or tsunamis} on Earth?

Once again, your posts are agenda driven. In the Christian bible, revenge, premeditated murder, harming innocence are strictly forbidden.

Killing in defense of ones life or protecting loved ones is unfortunately, sometimes necessary. Think of it this way: the police are in certain situations authorized to use deadly force in preservation and protection of 'we the people.'


If you want to define what you mean by long periods of calm, then maybe we could have some kind of rational exchange.
I would submit that only a blind/deaf or willfully ignorant person would say that during human existence, who cares what came before , there have never been a long period of clam either natural or human action based.

As to your assertion that revenge is not sanctioned in the Bible please give me your Bible source of choice and I will show that it is not certain at all.

Any other of your points you wish to have challenged then please give me your Biblical text of choice and we will start there.

As to your other off the point name calling, I have noticed on this board that when many feel their position challenged and they don't care to defend they resort to the name calling, that's your free will choice of course and I respect it from you.

Since my agenda is so painfully obvious to the great educated one in this thread (you) maybe you could spell it out for me so my poor challenged brain can understand it as it may help to clarify the terms of the conversation.

I await your charitable help on these points.

[highnote]

I don't give a poop what people think about anything except when teaching the young mind outright hogwash=Intelligent design. My wife was brought up in the "Bible belt" of Alberta and was taught all manner of religious B.S. in place of science. She laments that time in her education as wasted.

Free thinking people have enough to "re-learn" as it is without heaping total bull shit in their curriculum.


46,

I tend to agree with you, but perhaps not as quite as militantly.

ID should not be taught as fact -- unless there is rigorous scientific proof and it can be replicated, etc etc etc. It should be taught as philosophy.

First of all, perhaps students should be taught the differences and the distinctions between science and philosophy.

Second, they should be introduced to as many ideas as prudently possible, but they should be allowed to decide for themselves what belief they want to cling to.

Ultimately, that's what it comes down to -- beliefs. You can talk until you're blue in the face about ID being true or science being true. But if a person chooses to believe something it doesn't matter what they believe because it is true to them.

I don't have a problem with my kids being introduced to the philosophy of ID. I would have a problem with a teacher who tells my kids they should believe ID is true.

No one should tell another person what to believe. It is up to the individual to develop their own beliefs. And as long as those beliefs are useful then they're probably OK to have.

That's why I asked earlier in this thread "How do you know giraffes exist?" What proof do you have? If I have never seen a giraffe then as far as I'm concerned they don't exist. (Not really. I'm just trying to make a point.)

How do you know if 2+3 is true? I don't think you can really know.

Does 2+3 equal 5 or 23 or 2+3 or 3+2? It depends. It's relative.

If a person standing on a bus traveling 40 miles per hour drops a penny from the height of 4 feet how far does the penny travel before it hits the floor of the bus?

It depends on who is doing the measuring and where they are standing relative to the person dropping the coin. If they're next to the person they may say it travelled 4 feet before hitting the floor.

But what if the person doing the measuring is standing on the side of the road as the bus passes by? Then how far did the penny travel?

What is the truth?

Can there be more than one truth?

[46zilzal]

There is NO evidence for the fanciful creation story and their own standard, irreducible complexity is full of holes as well.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

"It is no secret that concepts like "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent design" have failed to take the scientific community by storm (Forrest 2002). Design has not prompted new research studies, new breakthroughs, or novel insights on so much as a single scientific question. Design advocates acknowledge this from time to time, but they often claim that this is because the scientific deck is stacked against them. The Darwinist establishment, they say, prevents them from getting a foot in the laboratory door.

I would suggest that the real reason for the cold shoulder given "design" by the scientific community, particularly by life science researchers, is because time and time again its principal scientific claims have turned out to be wrong. Science is a pragmatic activity, and if your hypothesis doesn't work, it is quickly discarded."

[highnote]

There is NO evidence for the fanciful creation story and their own standard, irreducible complexity is full of holes as well.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html


You only have to read a couple of sentences about irreducible complexity and you quickly realize it is a dumb argument.

What the inventor of irreducible complexity is really trying to say is that he is so smart he figured out where God began creating life.

He is not even close.

[highnote]

The other thing that strikes me is that creationists keep using science to make their argument. Problem is, science keeps advancing, so creationists are soon discredited.

If creationists are correct shouldn't they have been correct 100 years ago? Why keep using a moving target to make an argument?

[ceejay]

Incredible this thread is still alive. No shades of grey allowed here but.....

Some interesting interviews. Consecutive days:
Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion' as he examines God in all his forms and sets down his arguments for atheism.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9180871

Francis Collins on 'The Language of God' presents arguments for God's existence within an evolutionary framework. Geneticist Francis Collins is director of the National Human Genome Research Project. He is also an evangelical Christian. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743286391/npr-5-20

Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9207913

[PaceAdvantage]

Was not meant to be taken in a wooden literal sense you high school drop out.Completely UNCALLED FOR. Do you want to make it to 400?

[Gibbon]

...there was a big bang. But let's assume there was. Then what happened before the big bang -- maybe an infinite series of big bangs? Based on current best available evidence the BB or start to our universe is wildly held and accepted as fact. There are opposing opinions in string theory such as multiverse and meta universe. The most interesting alternative may be Sorce theory. Here (http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/)

However, you're engaging in infinite regress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress). Or, have you adopted 46zilzal and hcap's Zen/Tao? The universe through millions/billions/trillions of reincarnations is both infinitely old and infinitely young. I say preposterous! The most convenient, most likely to be correct answer is a Creator God who is infinity in every direction made all things seen and unseen.

he great mystery is "Why am I taking time to respond to this posting when I have so many other important things to do? Because you're an intelligent and curious soul. Interested how things work and why things work. As am I. Iron sharpens iron. Two heads butting, explore reality more in-depth then one solitary soul.

John you were kind enough to freely give away your Monte Carlo Simulator. What if I told you I don't believe you authored said application? You may know some rudimentary VB and over time the app evolved all on its own without your personal intervention. You might say, preposterous. I say evolution is preposterous.

Does the bible allow for a Christian nation to drop bombs in places where it is known with near certainty that innocent people will die? Are “they” really innocent? Do they harbor terrorists? Muslim children trained in Madrasahs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasa) to murder all Jews as a right.....But I digress, that's besides the point. Do you expect perfection from your military? Are you perfect? By you reasoning we would have lost to Germany and Japan.



Separately, the Amish person is under the protect of local police.

It has always been thou shall not kill. Murder was introduced by liberal scribes much later.

More later if I'm not to tired. I'm currently entertaining guest.

[Gibbon]

ddog,

I was out of line. It was late, I was very tired but my rudeness was utterly crude.
You have my sincerest apology.

[Gibbon]

PA,

when Sartinista hit men attack this sheet player
that's socially acceptable!?!

[highnote]

Based on current best available evidence the BB or start to our universe is wildly held and accepted as fact.

Is it a fact or theory?


However, you're engaging in infinite regress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress). Or, have you adopted 46zilzal and hcap's Zen/Tao? The universe through millions/billions/trillions of reincarnations is both infinitely old and infinitely young. I say preposterous!

Given the available information it seems as likely as any other theory or philosophy. "The Bible says God created the heavens and Earth." Does the Bible say the form of the heavens and Earth never change?



The most convenient, most likely to be correct answer is a Creator God who is infinity in every direction made all things seen and unseen.

Is that not a belief rather than a fact?


Because you're an intelligent and curious soul. Interested how things work and why things work. As am I. Iron sharpens iron. Two heads butting, explore reality more in-depth then one solitary soul.


That was a rhetorical question.



John you were kind enough to freely give away your Monte Carlo Simulator. What if I told you I don't believe you authored said application?

I'd say you're right. I stand on the shoulders of giants.


You may know some rudimentary VB and over time the app evolved all on its own without your personal intervention. You might say, preposterous. I say evolution is preposterous.

I say your reasoning on that point is preposterous. :D



Are “they” really innocent?

Are they all guilty -- even the new born babies?


Do they harbor terrorists?

Do babies knowingly harbor terrorists?

Do you expect perfection from your military?


Is that a rhetorical question?

Are you perfect?

Is that another rhetorical question?


By you reasoning we would have lost to Germany and Japan.

Would we have? How do you know? Can your theory be tested?


Separately, the Amish person is under the protect of local police.


And your point is?


It has always been thou shall not kill. Murder was introduced by liberal scribes much later.

If it was always thou shall not kill then why are there so many exceptions? Or maybe people are confused by it's simplicity?



More later if I'm not to tired. I'm currently entertaining guest.

OK. If you're up for it. Can't promise I'll be. :)

[Tom]

Science held that the world was flat, theat the sun revolved around us......you get the drift. Science is the best current belief we have until something better comes along. Until then, it is theory.
Truth is when you bring water to 212F and it boils. No math models, no theory
- you friggin DID IT.

So much crap poses as science it is astounding. And so many fools follow it....right to the ends of the earth, so to speak! :lol:

When you have a threory and then PROVE it, I'll listen, until then, I have my own, and no one has ever proven it wrong.

[Tom]

The general "you", not YOU, John! ;)

[highnote]

The general "you", not YOU, John! ;)


I figured that was who you were talking to.

I have my own theory, too, and no one has proven it wrong, either. It's actually a belief more than a theory, but definately not fact. I have no way to prove or even test my theory, though.

To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, "The existence of God can neither be proven or disproven. That is the role of faith."

[Gibbon]

So much crap poses as science....... Yes, that is exactly right. Leave it to Tom to clearly synthesize modern human vanity to a sentence. Tonight on 60 minutes there was a report on FBI's forensic labs. Over the past 40 years it was possible to identify a slug fired from a particular gun. A procedure called bullet lead analysis. Guess what? It's junk science admitted by senor FBI officials.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml

Is it a fact or theory? re: big bang You fail to ask this very same question regarding Darwinian evolution. Perhaps it suits your personal belief system.

[RaceBookJoe]

Even though I believe in creation/ID , as for as being taught in school, i think both should be taught...then let the student go on from there. They should be taught together also, that way one teaching wont:eek: get ingrained first. i was taught evolution in school, and I can still remember the picture of the "ancestor" of man that was in all of our books. They called him Nebraska man, and his image was drawn based on the finding of 1 tooth. 6 years later they discovered that the tooth actually was from an extinct pig, but the picture stayed in the books. Then doing a little reading i find that the retina of the human eye performs close to 10 billion calculations per second , and i feel that something like that couldnt have not been designed. It would take the Cray supercomputer over 100 years to simulate what takes place in the eye many times per second.

[ddog]

ddog,

I was out of line. It was late, I was very tired but my rudeness was utterly crude.
You have my sincerest apology.

Please, I was not offended, I don't mind a little rough and tumble, really I don't.

it is hard to express in a limited time and given a limited skill set exactly what I am trying to get across on some subjects espeically one with so many "angles" and so much background to it.

I really do like to throw out questions to people since I don't know when I may run into a genius or two, well it COULD happen, even on this board.

:)

I have probably crossed the line with the "Skater" guy/gal on some posts as well and PA has bore with that.

I do respect everyones right to their view and opinion( or at least I try to).

I bet if you and I and Skate, well maybe not Skate , but you and I were to meet up for an afternoon of horse race gambling and general hell raising we would get along fine.

Now after a couple of shots and a bad beat or two, that could change.

[Gibbon]

ddog,

You're a gentleman. Thanks for your understanding. Keep in mind civilization moves forward by stumbling over our mistakes, getting up and carrying on. Generally, geniuses are experts in a very narrow field. There have been some polymaths among mere mortals although extraordinarily rare. Usually they end up in mental institutions. My experience is that these kinds of individuals are dumb in matters of common sense - the practical things of life.

If you're looking for 1 + 1 = 2 kinds of proof, good luck. It's not available. Science works on probabilities not absolutes. Simply Google 'mathematical philosophy' or 'Kurt Godel.' You'll find 1+1 may equal 17 under certain situations.

You see, there are no absolutes. Call me a hypocrite for just making an absolute statement.
Therefore, human logic infers some absolutes. God must be absolute. Confusing I know but mathematical accurate.







___________________________
It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure. ~ Albert Einstein

Science never solves a problem without creating ten more. ~ George Bernard Shaw

[PaceAdvantage]

PA,

when Sartinista hit men attack this sheet player
that's socially acceptable!?!I've never claimed to be a model of consistency, if that's what your hinting....

[46zilzal]

The massive EGO of religious nuts, thinking that biological arguments have to be intepreted as having ANYTIHING to do with ANY religion. It is simply idiotic.

But then religion wants to tell you about astronomy, reproductive physiology and money as well so why I am not surprised that they would think simple change in form and function is ALL ABOUT THEM TOO and is a slap to the mythical GOD.

[Gibbon]

What are you blathering about now? Change within an existing species is a fact. Believing a fish discarded its fins, grew legs and eventually transformed into homo sapien is your religion.

[46zilzal]

What are you blathering about now? Change within an existing species is a fact. Believing a fish discarded its fins, grew legs and eventually transformed into homo sapien is your religion.
Your grasp of a proposed mechanism is on par with your knowing what was in Darwin's first book. You couldn't even get the title correct.

[JustRalph]

wow, what a thread.


One question for the big bang theory types............of which I include myself

What sparked the bang? serious question.............

[46zilzal]

What are you blathering about now? Change within an existing species is a fact. Believing a fish discarded its fins, grew legs and eventually transformed into homo sapien is your religion.
COMMON ancestor, not direct transitions. You know nothing of what you are talking about, NOT A THING.

[Tom]

COMMON ancestor, not direct transitions. You know nothing of what you are talking about, NOT A THING.


Put aside YOUR massive ego and you will see that many here do not think YOU know a thing about what you are talking about. You just found a new outlet for your pent up hate.

[46zilzal]

Put aside YOUR massive ego and you will see that many here do not think YOU know a thing about what you are talking about. You just found a new outlet for your pent up hate.
Consider the source. People who cannot put a sentence together, do not read but go on "gut" reactions? Of course they are unable to debate, they are UN-PREPARED for it.

New neural pathway usage would probably cause hemorrhage in their rarely used frontal lobes.

[RaceBookJoe]

What are you blathering about now? Change within an existing species is a fact. Believing a fish discarded its fins, grew legs and eventually transformed into homo sapien is your religion.

Hey Gibbon , not sure if you ever heard this quote but I think you will get a kick out of it. It is by Robert Jastrow, Columbia University Professor and Founder of the Goddard Space Center : "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story of the Big Bang ends like a bad dream. For the past three hundred years, scientists have scaled the mountain of ignorance and as they pull themselves over the final rock, they are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

[46zilzal]

The only reasons, one would claim sanctity of random life and nothingness after expiration, are because that particular person is to weak to survive against the stronger (fittest) and he wants to preserve his meaningless life through the help of the stronger or that person really knows life is not random or meaningless.
Another who has NO concept of what the tenants of evolution explain. ..They continually mix it up with the social Darwinism OTHERS overlaid on his findings.

It is about the change is animal species over time. THAT is it!

[Gibbon]

COMMON ancestor..... I've pointed out the logical fallacy of common ancestry on page 5 posts 62 and 66 of this thread.
Go back a read it. Perhaps you've not evolved sufficiently to understand the scientific method and what constitutes as proof.

The Cambrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion) explosion; rapid proliferation of life disproves Darwin/Gould/Dawkins et el...

[46zilzal]

http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/10/2586

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Our-Classrooms-Intelligent-Schools/dp/0807032786
It was not until 1968, some 43 years after the famous Scopes trial, that the U.S. Supreme Court declared bans on the teaching of evolution to be unconstitutional. But that long-sought ruling hasn't ended the debate as Christian conservatives mount ever more aggressive efforts to have creationism taught alongside evolution. Scott and Branch, directors of a nonprofit that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, offer a collection of
lively and informative essays on the conflict between the teaching of science and religion in American schools. Following a brief history of the efforts by Christian groups to develop a biblically based countertheory to evolution, contributors detail the religious, legal, and pedagogical issues raised by efforts to replace science with religion and the ultimate cost to children poorly educated in the sciences in an increasingly competitive and technological world market. Cautioning against public complacency in the face of mounting creationism campaigns, contributors detail recent efforts to defend the teaching of evolution. Readers concerned about the teaching of "intelligent design" will appreciate this resource. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

[PaceAdvantage]

New neural pathway usage would probably cause hemorrhage in their rarely used frontal lobes.Dude, we're not impressed. Seriously....not impressed....in fact, it's become comical.

[46zilzal]

Wow and you know how I loved to be referred to as, the very endearing and specific title, DUDE.

[Gibbon]

from zz's link above ....a theory of life that involves the incorporation of different beliefs. Especially as at least 40% of scientists (and presumably more of the lay population) surveyed in 1997 state that they believe in God....Larson, E.J., and Witham, L. 1997. . Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature. 368::435-436. I suppose those dissenting scientists are idiots as defined by 46zilzal. How must it make you feel Stephen Harper leader of the Canada's conservative party is GW foot stool?

[46zilzal]

NO where at any time was that debated. They, and whomever else wants to join their numbers, can believe the moon is made of French Vanilla Yogurt but that has NOTHING to do with the biological evidence of animal change over the years.

This outrageous position that everything is about religion when that philosophy is mutually exclusive from the entire thing is lunacy.

Just about everyone thinks that way about the Rutabaga clone Harper.

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow and you know how I loved to be referred to as, the very endearing and specific title, DUDE.It works for me....

[46zilzal]

It works for me....
very original too kind of akin to

"Ya know?"
"unstand what I'm sayin'"

[PaceAdvantage]

very original too kind of akin to

"Ya know?"
"unstand what I'm sayin'"What can I tell you....I'm still under 40 (barely)....

[46zilzal]

What can I tell you....I'm still under 40 (barely)....
No, I wouldn't have guessed a moment older! The language (content and form) gives away most as being original as wood.

[46zilzal]

The good old Wedge document outlining what the long term goals of the Discovery Institute in Seattle are aimed at.

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

[PaceAdvantage]

No, I wouldn't have guessed a moment older! The language (content and form) gives away most as being original as wood.Maybe I'll start cutting and pasting more so that I can join your merry little league of pseudo-intellectuals.

[highnote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
Is it a fact or theory? re: big bang

You fail to ask this very same question regarding Darwinian evolution. Perhaps it suits your personal belief system.

And you fail to answer.

But I will ask.... is "Darwinian evolution" theory or fact?

[JustRalph]

why you put up with this.......... I will never know..........

[Tom]

Anyone who believes in evolution should read this thread! :lol:

[Turntime]

Evolution is a theory and also a fact. Facts are the worlds data. Theories are structures and ideas that explain the facts. Evolution is the only theory so far that explains all the facts (or explains them best), and has stood the test of time.

[Grits]

"Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God."

I'm sorry, but this is a pretty solid effort for a post that speaks toward a blend, and understanding of the two.

Posted by the only person among us whose in Kabul.

It may, indeed, take more than apes to get him safely out of there.

Just something noted in the thread. You guys continue.

[ceejay]

Posted by the only person among us whose in Kabul.
I'm in Oklahoma not Kabul. That's the "other cj" in Kabul....

[Grits]

I'm in Oklahoma not Kabul. That's the "other cj" in Kabul....

It doesn't matter which cj it is to me--the post was a fine one, at an opportune point in the thread, and the author's quote, one I agree with.

I'll be thinking a great deal about that "other cj."

I will note, when I saw the post, I wondered, how does someone get called from Belgium to Oklahoma, then to Kabul?

My mistake.

[Show Me the Wire]

Another who has NO concept of what the tenants of evolution explain. ..They continually mix it up with the social Darwinism OTHERS overlaid on his findings.

It is about the change is animal species over time. THAT is it!

If you believe Darwin's theory is limited to change in the created animal species over time, then why do you oppose the philosophy the Creator created life (see your mythical god post)? These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think that's a rhetorical question, right? I'll take a shot at answering it

Yes swetyejohn it was a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question, should have put the ;) at the end. But thanks for the response.

[46zilzal]

More evidence all the time, REAL evidence.

QUOTE: "Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism."

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

[Grits]

It doesn't matter which cj it is to me--the post was a fine one, at an opportune point in the thread, and the author's quote, one I agree with.

I'll be thinking a great deal about that "other cj."

I will note, when I saw the post, I wondered, how does someone get called from Belgium to Oklahoma, then to Kabul?

My mistake.

Now, the other CJ replies in the other thread. His avatar shows, he resides in Belgium. The CJ that replied to the thread resides in Oklahoma, and possibly has not set foot in Belgium or Kabul.:lol:

Somebody, anybody.......I don't care. Please, inform me if I have it correct at this point. There are 2 CJs, one serves in the military, one is, and has been stateside?

Damn, this is tough--name changes to protect the innocent, who I obviously have entangled.

[Show Me the Wire]

More evidence all the time, REAL evidence.

QUOTE: "Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism."

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

"Evidence for this hypothesis" is the phrase used by the researchers. This is your problem zilly you confuse opinion, an educated guess, for a an irrefutable fact. In the above research I am not sure the hypothesis is an educated guess.

BTW you have not answered my direct question to you about evolution and a Creator not being mutually exclusive using your application of Darwin's theory.

[46zilzal]

Quantum Theory was an educated guess, until, like evolution, evidence poured in from INDEPENDENT sources, substantiating BOTH.

From the source above is this conclusion:"Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2."

"The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming."

[46zilzal]

An entire source page.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

[Show Me the Wire]

Quantum Theory was an educated guess, until, like evolution, evidence poured in from INDEPENDENT sources, substantiating BOTH.

From the source above is this conclusion:"Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2."

"The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming."

Still do not see the words "irrefutable fact". This phrase is bothersome "Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome". Claims unmistakable remains of the original chromosome from a common ancestor without factual support.

If you accept flawed facts your conclusion will be flawed.

[ceejay]

Now, the other CJ replies in the other thread. His avatar shows, he resides in Belgium. The CJ that replied to the thread resides in Oklahoma, and possibly has not set foot in Belgium or Kabul.:lol:

Somebody, anybody.......I don't care. Please, inform me if I have it correct at this point. There are 2 CJs, one serves in the military, one is, and has been stateside?

Damn, this is tough--name changes to protect the innocent, who I obviously have entangled.
OK. There is ceejay and cj.

cj is the pacefigure creator. He is stationed with the AF in Belgium but is on assignment in Kabul. He and his family moved to Belgium from Oklahoma City.

I am ceejay, a pacefigure user. I live in Oklahoma city-- have for ~25 years-- and am a petrophysicist working in the oil and gas business. Petrophysics is a sub-specialty of geology/engineering; therefore, evolution is something I've studied.

It gets even more confusing when you realize that cj and I share the same first name. Some people call us "1 and 1a." :)

[Show Me the Wire]

An entire source page.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

Silly pure junk science. The author of your cited research did not do the research. He compiled three separate and distinct research studies into his article to come up with his guess. Further the author of your so-called real evidence is not a geneticist.

There lies your problem zilly you try to pass off opinions and beliefs as scientific provable fact.

[46zilzal]

Another one who cannot read...There are a lot of you fellows around.

[Show Me the Wire]

I can read and comprehend. I am referring to your original source from evolutionpages.com.

Your weakness is the comprehension part, as well as, critical thinking.

BTW you still have not answered my direct question. Why am I not surprised?

[46zilzal]

I can read and comprehend. I am referring to your original source from evolutionpages.com.

Your weakness is the comprehension part, as well as, critical thinking.

BTW you still have not answered my direct question. Why am I not surprised?

Quoting actual research doesn't count? Hmmmmmm

Your question is so inane and irrelevant it doesn't deserve an answer.

[Grits]

Ok, sorta......:lol:

So, this means that Cj's dad, that I met at Saratoga, is not your dad, but Cj's? Right Ceejay?

I'm gonna tell ya now though, this is wrong guys. Its wrong to confuse newer members like this......has the thought of uncoupling the entries ever been considered? Somehow, that sentence/question makes it all just sound worse. LOLOL

I was told Cj was the pagefigure designer; the engineer by day who has the long waiting list for subscribers to his figs.

Hijacking the thread, who cares......this is important stuff that maybe I have figured out now. One thing's certain, there's two of you that once resided in Okie country.

Thank you ceejay for your reply.

OK. There is ceejay and cj.

cj is the pacefigure creator. He is stationed with the AF in Belgium but is on assignment in Kabul. He and his family moved to Belgium from Oklahoma City.

I am ceejay, a pacefigure user. I live in Oklahoma city-- have for ~25 years-- and am a petrophysicist working in the oil and gas business. Petrophysics is a sub-specialty of geology/engineering; therefore, evolution is something I've studied.

It gets even more confusing when you realize that cj and I share the same first name. Some people call us "1 and 1a." :)

[highnote]

OK. There is ceejay and cj.

cj is the pacefigure creator. He is stationed with the AF in Belgium but is on assignment in Kabul. He and his family moved to Belgium from Oklahoma City.

I am ceejay, a pacefigure user. I live in Oklahoma city-- have for ~25 years-- and am a petrophysicist working in the oil and gas business. Petrophysics is a sub-specialty of geology/engineering; therefore, evolution is something I've studied.

It gets even more confusing when you realize that cj and I share the same first name. Some people call us "1 and 1a." :)


Isn't cj pacefigures from Oklahoma, too? That makes it even more confusing. I met cj at Saratoga. So I do know one thing.... one of you is a really nice guy. :D

[Show Me the Wire]

Quoting actual research doesn't count? Hmmmmmm

Your question is so inane and irrelevant it doesn't deserve an answer.

Quoting research is fine in its context, not out of context.

My question is not inane. I do not see in any of the research you quoted that evolution applies only to the change in created animals over time and this theory is mutually exclusive to life being created (coming into existence) through a Creator.

The only problem with my question is you do not believe evolution is limited to once life begins, but that evolution explains origin too.

And I am prepared to get your stock answer about knowing what you think. You are very transparent.

[ceejay]

So, this means that Cj's dad, that I met at Saratoga, is not your dad, but Cj's? Right Ceejay?
You are correct.

[Show Me the Wire]

Never meet either myself. I have enjoyed their postings though. I thought ceejay also has his home grown sw.

[Grits]

You are correct.

I met several PA members in the tent on that weekend of racing, so we are "good to go".

Thanks again.

[Tom]

Isn't cj pacefigures from Oklahoma, too? That makes it even more confusing. I met cj at Saratoga. So I do know one thing.... one of you is a really nice guy. :D

CJ's pacefigures are straight from HEAVEN! ;):D

[ceejay]

CJ's pacefigures are straight from HEAVEN! ;):D
And we know heaven is less than a furlong from Oklahoma! ;) ;)

[GaryG]

And we know heaven is less than a furlong from Oklahoma! ;) ;)That is for sure....:jump: :jump:

[RaceBookJoe]

CJ's pacefigures are straight from HEAVEN! ;):D

Come on Tom, to be back on thread you know there are some people that dont believe in Heaven...that would take God creating it. CJ's figs evolved from pond scum billions of years ago. :rolleyes: