Discussion:
Bring it on!
(too old to reply)
noteasily
2006-12-16 16:32:18 UTC
Permalink
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.

They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.

Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
these and I have at least another trillion for you:

1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).

2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.

3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.

4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?

5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?

6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.

If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!

Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
Free Lunch
2006-12-16 17:39:52 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Dec 2006 08:32:18 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
Such lovely assertions.
Post by noteasily
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Why?
Post by noteasily
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
Which genetics and evolutionary biology classes have you taken? Where?
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
Your questions show a total lack of understanding of biology.
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
The parent.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Babies grow. Apparently you don't understand developmental biology,
either.
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
A notochord.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs were around long before chickens.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
If you cannot ask sensible science questions it is because you are
either profoundly ignorant or an intentional liar. Every anti-science
creationist who has posted here has shown this to be the case. Some, of
course, are both ignorant and liars.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
Why do you call God a liar? The evidence here is that, if God created
the universe and life on earth, he used the natural processes that have
been discovered. Those who reject that evidence are calling God a liar.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
noteasily
2006-12-16 22:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Let's see - no answers here...just more nonsense...I do like the
quote...nice back handed insult..I really like that quote! Good one!!!
- God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put the wise to
shame.Or those who think they are wise :O)

Please open your eyes and look around. Your view is blinded, you think
all of these complicated plants, foods, energies, organisms, life forms
just happened over millions of years??? Come on! What about sex, breast
milk, your skull, self healing, wheat, seeds, fire, rain, bacteria,
trees,eye sight, water (like I said, "I have a trillion more")?

You yourself (yes even you) are wonderfully made by a Creator and so is
everything else. Sooner, hopefully than later you will figure this out.
:) God Bless You!!!
Post by Free Lunch
On 16 Dec 2006 08:32:18 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
Such lovely assertions.
Post by noteasily
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Why?
Post by noteasily
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
Which genetics and evolutionary biology classes have you taken? Where?
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
Your questions show a total lack of understanding of biology.
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
The parent.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Babies grow. Apparently you don't understand developmental biology,
either.
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
A notochord.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs were around long before chickens.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
If you cannot ask sensible science questions it is because you are
either profoundly ignorant or an intentional liar. Every anti-science
creationist who has posted here has shown this to be the case. Some, of
course, are both ignorant and liars.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
Why do you call God a liar? The evidence here is that, if God created
the universe and life on earth, he used the natural processes that have
been discovered. Those who reject that evidence are calling God a liar.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Øien
2006-12-16 22:53:58 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Dec 2006 14:46:42 -0800, "noteasily" <***@impresse.us> wrote:



Let's see - no answers here...just more nonsense...I do like the
quote...nice back handed insult..I really like that quote! Good one!!!
- God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put the wise to
shame.Or those who think they are wise :O)

Please open your eyes and look around. Your view is blinded, you think
all of these complicated plants, foods, energies, organisms, life forms
just happened over millions of years??? Come on! What about sex, breast
milk, your skull, self healing, wheat, seeds, fire, rain, bacteria,
trees,eye sight, water (like I said, "I have a trillion more")?

You yourself (yes even you) are wonderfully made by a Creator and so is
everything else. Sooner, hopefully than later you will figure this out.
:) God Bless

<>
You're sounding like a broken record. I'm sure the IDiots who coach you
have convinced you that it's all just too complicated. And, in your
case, it appears they're correct.

BTW: Is a person with Down's syndrome also 'wonderfully made by a
creator'?
<>
Post by Free Lunch
On 16 Dec 2006 08:32:18 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
Such lovely assertions.
Post by noteasily
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Why?
Post by noteasily
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
Which genetics and evolutionary biology classes have you taken? Where?
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
Your questions show a total lack of understanding of biology.
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
The parent.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Babies grow. Apparently you don't understand developmental biology,
either.
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
A notochord.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs were around long before chickens.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
If you cannot ask sensible science questions it is because you are
either profoundly ignorant or an intentional liar. Every anti-science
creationist who has posted here has shown this to be the case. Some, of
course, are both ignorant and liars.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the
heavens.
Post by Free Lunch
Why do you call God a liar? The evidence here is that, if God created
the universe and life on earth, he used the natural processes that have
been discovered. Those who reject that evidence are calling God a liar.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Free Lunch
2006-12-17 00:15:13 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Dec 2006 14:46:42 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
Let's see - no answers here...just more nonsense...I do like the
quote...nice back handed insult..I really like that quote! Good one!!!
I'll bet you've never heard of Augustine and know nothing about his
importance to Christianity.
Post by noteasily
- God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put the wise to
shame.Or those who think they are wise :O)
You are proud of your ignorance. Remember what happened in the Parable
of the Talents? Jesus doesn't condone your proud ignorance or lies.
Post by noteasily
Please open your eyes and look around. Your view is blinded, you think
all of these complicated plants, foods, energies, organisms, life forms
just happened over millions of years???
It happened over billions of years, but it didn't just happen, it
happened as a result of natural processes and ecological pressures.
Post by noteasily
Come on! What about sex, breast
milk, your skull, self healing, wheat, seeds, fire, rain, bacteria,
trees,eye sight, water (like I said, "I have a trillion more")?
All of which are explained by biology and the history of life on earth.
Your questions tell us that you are completely ignorant of science,
almost as if you are a middle school student who is a victim of
religiously motivated irresponsible home schooling. You have no idea but
your precious religious doctrines. Those doctrines, when it comes to
science, have been proven false. You have been lied to.
Post by noteasily
You yourself (yes even you) are wonderfully made by a Creator and so is
everything else. Sooner, hopefully than later you will figure this out.
:) God Bless You!!!
Even if God is responsible for it, He showed us that He used evolution.
Those who reject evolution are calling God a liar.
Post by noteasily
Post by Free Lunch
On 16 Dec 2006 08:32:18 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
Such lovely assertions.
Post by noteasily
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Why?
Post by noteasily
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
Which genetics and evolutionary biology classes have you taken? Where?
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
Your questions show a total lack of understanding of biology.
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
The parent.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Babies grow. Apparently you don't understand developmental biology,
either.
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
A notochord.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs were around long before chickens.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
If you cannot ask sensible science questions it is because you are
either profoundly ignorant or an intentional liar. Every anti-science
creationist who has posted here has shown this to be the case. Some, of
course, are both ignorant and liars.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
Why do you call God a liar? The evidence here is that, if God created
the universe and life on earth, he used the natural processes that have
been discovered. Those who reject that evidence are calling God a liar.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Steven J.
2006-12-16 19:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
I think you mean, "when we evolved from microorganisms ..." A
"microcosm" is a system or structure that replicates, in miniature, an
entire world or universe.

Single cells, of course, get along fine without separate systems or
organs for respiration, reproduction, or digestion. I would think that
specialized cells for reproduction came first, while absorbing
nutrients (and oxygen) was still done through the cell walls of
relatively unspecialized body cells. Lungs would be the last stage to
evolve; our early chordate and vertebrate ancestors breathed through
gills, or occasionally sucked in air through their mouths to be
absorbed through blood vessels in the palate, before lungs evolved.
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
What can this question possibly mean? Are you evisioning some version
of evolution in which each species arises independently and without
evolutionary precursors from single-celled organisms? There is a crank
named Senapathy who holds to some such theory, but it is hardly
evolutionary theory as known from the time of Darwin on.

Or are you asking about embryonic development? If you cannot explain
how a single fertilized ovum develops, step by step, into a baby, are
you prepared to embrace scientific storkism (or would you prefer the
cabbage-patch theory?)?
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
Presumably, the same highly evolved apes who gave birth to the baby
raised it. However, there was no sharp dividing line between nonhuman
apes and humans, and hence no such line between ape babies and human
babies. Note, by the way, that nearly all mammals provide some degree
of parental care for their offspring (so do some reptiles, and nearly
all birds, of course), so there is also no sharp dividing line between
species that care for their offspring and those that do not.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Again, this is a question from developmental, rather than evolutionary,
biology, unless you will be content with "babies that stayed babies
would never reproduce and pass on their genes, so only babies with
genes for growing into adults would have babies of their own, with the
same genes."
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
Presumably, as in modern jellyfish, as an extremely decentralized
network of specialized nerve cells, gradually becoming more centralized
to acommodate the input of information from increasingly sophisticated
eyes.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs have been around for half a billion years or more. Even
hard-shelled, "oval" eggs have been around since the days of the
dinosaurs from which chickens evolved (fossils of such eggs have been
recovered, in rare instances even with fossil embryos). Again, there
was no sharp dividing line between chickens and non-chickens, but if
you want a shorthand version, you can think of a nearly-chicken laying
a mutant egg from which a chicken hatched.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
And if you cannot answer your own questions about embrynic development,
you are a believer in storks who drop babies down the chimneys of
deserving couples. I suggest you not get a job teaching a sex-ed
course.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
-- Steven J.
noteasily
2006-12-16 20:08:47 UTC
Permalink
First of all, very thoughtful answers and I thank you for the attempt.
I think all of you Evolutionists consciously believe their position,
but subconsiously they know that their arguments are impossible. Please
don't take my responses/questions as an attack.
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
I think you mean, "when we evolved from microorganisms ..." A
"microcosm" is a system or structure that replicates, in miniature, an
entire world or universe.
Single cells, of course, get along fine without separate systems or
organs for respiration, reproduction, or digestion. I would think that
specialized cells for reproduction came first, while absorbing
nutrients (and oxygen) was still done through the cell walls of
relatively unspecialized body cells. Lungs would be the last stage to
evolve; our early chordate and vertebrate ancestors breathed through
gills, or occasionally sucked in air through their mouths to be
absorbed through blood vessels in the palate, before lungs evolved.
Nice try - why oxygen? Where did it come from? Where did the
"nutrients" come from? How are these single cells evolving together?
What you are saying is impossible...
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
What can this question possibly mean? Are you evisioning some version
of evolution in which each species arises independently and without
evolutionary precursors from single-celled organisms? There is a crank
named Senapathy who holds to some such theory, but it is hardly
evolutionary theory as known from the time of Darwin on.
I don't believe there was ever a blob - how did your microorganism
evolve into a baby - someone had to be there to take care of the first
baby. What it a microorganism that took care of the ape/baby? How did
it feed it? Again..this is impossible.
Post by Steven J.
Or are you asking about embryonic development? If you cannot explain
how a single fertilized ovum develops, step by step, into a baby, are
you prepared to embrace scientific storkism (or would you prefer the
cabbage-patch theory?)?
How did you get to embryonic development, go ahead and explain how you
got here from microorganisms to embryonic development.
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
Presumably, the same highly evolved apes who gave birth to the baby
raised it. However, there was no sharp dividing line between nonhuman
apes and humans, and hence no such line between ape babies and human
babies. Note, by the way, that nearly all mammals provide some degree
of parental care for their offspring (so do some reptiles, and nearly
all birds, of course), so there is also no sharp dividing line between
species that care for their offspring and those that do not.
Why do we care for our offspring? Why does a baby cry? Who taught the
first baby to cry? Who could hear it? Did they have ears to hear? Why
do mothers have breastmilk? Some mother of a child started thinking how
great it would be to have milk on her chest...low and behold breasts
with milk evolved. Again...impossible!
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Again, this is a question from developmental, rather than evolutionary,
biology, unless you will be content with "babies that stayed babies
would never reproduce and pass on their genes, so only babies with
genes for growing into adults would have babies of their own, with the
same genes."
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
Presumably, as in modern jellyfish, as an extremely decentralized
network of specialized nerve cells, gradually becoming more centralized
to acommodate the input of information from increasingly sophisticated
eyes.
Jellyfish don't appear to be very smart. Why do they sting? What do
they eat? How do they reproduce? Are they part of the food chain? How
did the food chain evolve?
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs have been around for half a billion years or more. Even
hard-shelled, "oval" eggs have been around since the days of the
dinosaurs from which chickens evolved (fossils of such eggs have been
recovered, in rare instances even with fossil embryos). Again, there
was no sharp dividing line between chickens and non-chickens, but if
you want a shorthand version, you can think of a nearly-chicken laying
a mutant egg from which a chicken hatched.
How would an old unhatched egg hatch into something. Please put any egg
outside, come back in 10 years and tell me what you have...again
impossible.
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
And if you cannot answer your own questions about embrynic development,
you are a believer in storks who drop babies down the chimneys of
deserving couples. I suggest you not get a job teaching a sex-ed
course.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
-- Steven J.
Øien
2006-12-16 20:33:59 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Dec 2006 12:08:47 -0800, "noteasily" <***@impresse.us> wrote:

First of all, very thoughtful answers and I thank you for the attempt.
I think all of you Evolutionists consciously believe their position,
but subconsiously they know that their arguments are impossible. Please
don't take my responses/questions as an attack.
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
I think you mean, "when we evolved from microorganisms ..." A
"microcosm" is a system or structure that replicates, in miniature, an
entire world or universe.
Single cells, of course, get along fine without separate systems or
organs for respiration, reproduction, or digestion. I would think that
specialized cells for reproduction came first, while absorbing
nutrients (and oxygen) was still done through the cell walls of
relatively unspecialized body cells. Lungs would be the last stage to
evolve; our early chordate and vertebrate ancestors breathed through
gills, or occasionally sucked in air through their mouths to be
absorbed through blood vessels in the palate, before lungs evolved.
Nice try - why oxygen? Where did it come from? Where did the
"nutrients" come from? How are these single cells evolving together?
What you are saying is impossible...
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
What can this question possibly mean? Are you evisioning some version
of evolution in which each species arises independently and without
evolutionary precursors from single-celled organisms? There is a crank
named Senapathy who holds to some such theory, but it is hardly
evolutionary theory as known from the time of Darwin on.
I don't believe there was ever a blob - how did your microorganism
evolve into a baby - someone had to be there to take care of the first
baby. What it a microorganism that took care of the ape/baby? How did
it feed it? Again..this is impossible.
Post by Steven J.
Or are you asking about embryonic development? If you cannot explain
how a single fertilized ovum develops, step by step, into a baby, are
you prepared to embrace scientific storkism (or would you prefer the
cabbage-patch theory?)?
How did you get to embryonic development, go ahead and explain how you
got here from microorganisms to embryonic development.
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
Presumably, the same highly evolved apes who gave birth to the baby
raised it. However, there was no sharp dividing line between nonhuman
apes and humans, and hence no such line between ape babies and human
babies. Note, by the way, that nearly all mammals provide some degree
of parental care for their offspring (so do some reptiles, and nearly
all birds, of course), so there is also no sharp dividing line between
species that care for their offspring and those that do not.
Why do we care for our offspring? Why does a baby cry? Who taught the
first baby to cry? Who could hear it? Did they have ears to hear? Why
do mothers have breastmilk? Some mother of a child started thinking how
great it would be to have milk on her chest...low and behold breasts
with milk evolved. Again...impossible!
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Again, this is a question from developmental, rather than
evolutionary,
Post by Steven J.
biology, unless you will be content with "babies that stayed babies
would never reproduce and pass on their genes, so only babies with
genes for growing into adults would have babies of their own, with the
same genes."
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
Presumably, as in modern jellyfish, as an extremely decentralized
network of specialized nerve cells, gradually becoming more
centralized
Post by Steven J.
to acommodate the input of information from increasingly sophisticated
eyes.
Jellyfish don't appear to be very smart. Why do they sting? What do
they eat? How do they reproduce? Are they part of the food chain? How
did the food chain evolve?
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs have been around for half a billion years or more. Even
hard-shelled, "oval" eggs have been around since the days of the
dinosaurs from which chickens evolved (fossils of such eggs have been
recovered, in rare instances even with fossil embryos). Again, there
was no sharp dividing line between chickens and non-chickens, but if
you want a shorthand version, you can think of a nearly-chicken laying
a mutant egg from which a chicken hatched.
How would an old unhatched egg hatch into something. Please put any egg
outside, come back in 10 years and tell me what you have...again
impossible.
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
And if you cannot answer your own questions about embrynic
development,
Post by Steven J.
you are a believer in storks who drop babies down the chimneys of
deserving couples. I suggest you not get a job teaching a sex-ed
course.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
-- Steven J.
One cannot explain complicated things to he who does not know even the
basics. Read a book someday! Maybe then, you'll look less like a jerk!
Free Lunch
2006-12-16 21:07:07 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Dec 2006 12:08:47 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
First of all, very thoughtful answers and I thank you for the attempt.
I think all of you Evolutionists consciously believe their position,
but subconsiously they know that their arguments are impossible. Please
don't take my responses/questions as an attack.
No, I take your responses as either parody of a creationist or as a
result of a total lack of understanding of biology and other sciences.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
I think you mean, "when we evolved from microorganisms ..." A
"microcosm" is a system or structure that replicates, in miniature, an
entire world or universe.
Single cells, of course, get along fine without separate systems or
organs for respiration, reproduction, or digestion. I would think that
specialized cells for reproduction came first, while absorbing
nutrients (and oxygen) was still done through the cell walls of
relatively unspecialized body cells. Lungs would be the last stage to
evolve; our early chordate and vertebrate ancestors breathed through
gills, or occasionally sucked in air through their mouths to be
absorbed through blood vessels in the palate, before lungs evolved.
Nice try - why oxygen?
Because free oxygen is necessary for cellular operations.
Post by noteasily
Where did it come from?
It is found dissolved in water as well as air (we are talking about the
molecule oxygen, O<sub>2</sub>, not merely the element).
Post by noteasily
Where did the
"nutrients" come from?
Absorbed from the environment.
Post by noteasily
How are these single cells evolving together?
Most commonly as an colony of undifferentiated cells.
Post by noteasily
What you are saying is impossible...
You have no idea what he was talking about, yet you conclude through
your personal arrogance that life cannot do what life manifestly has
done. Your hubris is staggering.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
What can this question possibly mean? Are you evisioning some version
of evolution in which each species arises independently and without
evolutionary precursors from single-celled organisms? There is a crank
named Senapathy who holds to some such theory, but it is hardly
evolutionary theory as known from the time of Darwin on.
I don't believe there was ever a blob - how did your microorganism
evolve into a baby - someone had to be there to take care of the first
baby. What it a microorganism that took care of the ape/baby? How did
it feed it? Again..this is impossible.
As you should know, the complexity grew slowly over many generations.
Your question shows either staggering ignorance or total dishonesty. I
won't exclude both possibilities.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Or are you asking about embryonic development? If you cannot explain
how a single fertilized ovum develops, step by step, into a baby, are
you prepared to embrace scientific storkism (or would you prefer the
cabbage-patch theory?)?
How did you get to embryonic development, go ahead and explain how you
got here from microorganisms to embryonic development.
You don't exhibit an adequate understanding of the basics of science
well enough to have this explained to you. Maybe you need to take your
fourth grade science class again.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
Presumably, the same highly evolved apes who gave birth to the baby
raised it. However, there was no sharp dividing line between nonhuman
apes and humans, and hence no such line between ape babies and human
babies. Note, by the way, that nearly all mammals provide some degree
of parental care for their offspring (so do some reptiles, and nearly
all birds, of course), so there is also no sharp dividing line between
species that care for their offspring and those that do not.
Why do we care for our offspring? Why does a baby cry? Who taught the
first baby to cry? Who could hear it? Did they have ears to hear? Why
do mothers have breastmilk? Some mother of a child started thinking how
great it would be to have milk on her chest...low and behold breasts
with milk evolved. Again...impossible!
Breasts evolved long before humans did. That is why all mammals feed
their offspring with milk.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Again, this is a question from developmental, rather than evolutionary,
biology, unless you will be content with "babies that stayed babies
would never reproduce and pass on their genes, so only babies with
genes for growing into adults would have babies of their own, with the
same genes."
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
Presumably, as in modern jellyfish, as an extremely decentralized
network of specialized nerve cells, gradually becoming more centralized
to acommodate the input of information from increasingly sophisticated
eyes.
Jellyfish don't appear to be very smart. Why do they sting? What do
they eat? How do they reproduce? Are they part of the food chain? How
did the food chain evolve?
Why do you ask so many different questions without any apparent evidence
that you read the other answers?
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs have been around for half a billion years or more. Even
hard-shelled, "oval" eggs have been around since the days of the
dinosaurs from which chickens evolved (fossils of such eggs have been
recovered, in rare instances even with fossil embryos). Again, there
was no sharp dividing line between chickens and non-chickens, but if
you want a shorthand version, you can think of a nearly-chicken laying
a mutant egg from which a chicken hatched.
How would an old unhatched egg hatch into something. Please put any egg
outside, come back in 10 years and tell me what you have...again
impossible.
This is why I think you might just be parodying the anti-science
creationists. I don't think that any of them are that stupid.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
And if you cannot answer your own questions about embrynic development,
you are a believer in storks who drop babies down the chimneys of
deserving couples. I suggest you not get a job teaching a sex-ed
course.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
2006-12-17 06:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
First of all, very thoughtful answers and I thank you for the attempt.
I think all of you Evolutionists consciously believe their position,
but subconsiously they know that their arguments are impossible. Please
don't take my responses/questions as an attack.
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
They like to talk about migrations and observable phenomena - Who
cares! Tell me how it all began.
Here are some observations we all have seen, please explain one of
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise). After
you tell me this, please tell me how this evolved "blob" survived
before the other body functions started. If you tell they all had to
start at one time then you are a Creationist (sorry to break that to
you).
I think you mean, "when we evolved from microorganisms ..." A
"microcosm" is a system or structure that replicates, in miniature, an
entire world or universe.
Single cells, of course, get along fine without separate systems or
organs for respiration, reproduction, or digestion. I would think that
specialized cells for reproduction came first, while absorbing
nutrients (and oxygen) was still done through the cell walls of
relatively unspecialized body cells. Lungs would be the last stage to
evolve; our early chordate and vertebrate ancestors breathed through
gills, or occasionally sucked in air through their mouths to be
absorbed through blood vessels in the palate, before lungs evolved.
Nice try - why oxygen? Where did it come from? Where did the
"nutrients" come from? How are these single cells evolving together?
What you are saying is impossible...
Oxygen? IIRC it is the product of helium fusion in massive stars,
scattered through the galaxy in supernova explosions and accumulating,
along with other elements due to gravity.

Nutrients? The so-called "archae," perhaps the most primitive living
cells, include a number of species that derive nutrition from chemical
processes that are part of geology, rather than from other living
things. Early in the history of life, "nutrients" presumably included
sugars, nucleotides, amino acids and simple proteins that form
spontaneously under a variety of conditions. Of course, for modern
living things, "nutrients" often come from other living things, or
*are* other living things.

Bacteria have been known to form long strings of cells in a row.
Eukaryotes (cells with nuclei and internal organelles) form more
complicated multicellular systems; single-celled eukaryotes have been
observed to evolve into spherical colonies of many similar cells in
response to the introduction of a predator. From there, it is a matter
of mutations producing genes that, in response to particular
environmental stimuli, produce chemical signals that cause cells to
develop in different ways, leading from simple colonies of identical
cells to organisms with multiple cell types.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
2. When the first human "blob" evolved into a baby - explain how
this came about.
What can this question possibly mean? Are you evisioning some version
of evolution in which each species arises independently and without
evolutionary precursors from single-celled organisms? There is a crank
named Senapathy who holds to some such theory, but it is hardly
evolutionary theory as known from the time of Darwin on.
I don't believe there was ever a blob - how did your microorganism
evolve into a baby - someone had to be there to take care of the first
baby. What it a microorganism that took care of the ape/baby? How did
it feed it? Again..this is impossible.
There are thousands of species in which the young receive no parental
care whatsover. There are fish so lacking in parental instincts that
they will eat their own babies if they catch them. So, obviously, it
is false that the first baby must have needed someone to care for it;
who cares for a baby fly or spider or trout? Parental care evolved
along with the need for parental care; there are all manner of
gradations in parental care from eating your young if you run across
them to spending a decade or more raising, feeding, and training them.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Or are you asking about embryonic development? If you cannot explain
how a single fertilized ovum develops, step by step, into a baby, are
you prepared to embrace scientific storkism (or would you prefer the
cabbage-patch theory?)?
How did you get to embryonic development, go ahead and explain how you
got here from microorganisms to embryonic development.
And your assumption is that if I cannot explain every step along a very
long path, this proves that creationism (and your particular variant of
it, of course: not Hindu or Muslim creationism, for example)? I am not
certain whether you stand more in need of a primer in biology or in
elementary logic.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
3. After you explain #2 - tell me who raised the first baby.
Presumably, the same highly evolved apes who gave birth to the baby
raised it. However, there was no sharp dividing line between nonhuman
apes and humans, and hence no such line between ape babies and human
babies. Note, by the way, that nearly all mammals provide some degree
of parental care for their offspring (so do some reptiles, and nearly
all birds, of course), so there is also no sharp dividing line between
species that care for their offspring and those that do not.
Why do we care for our offspring? Why does a baby cry? Who taught the
first baby to cry? Who could hear it? Did they have ears to hear? Why
do mothers have breastmilk? Some mother of a child started thinking how
great it would be to have milk on her chest...low and behold breasts
with milk evolved. Again...impossible!
The first females with mammary glands did not, if their brain sizes are
anything to go by, do much in the way of thinking. Mammary glands
appear (a lot of work has been done on this, but I suspect the details
are far too technical for you to follow) to be modified sweat glands;
primitive synapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") probably obtained some
nutrition from licking their mothers' skin, and getting proteins
secreted in the sweat. Again, mutations that altered the growth of
these glands to increase the amount of proteins and other nutrients
would have been favored once the habit was in place. Note that the
most primitive living mammals, the egg-laying monotremes (platypuses
and enchidnas) don't have nipples, although they do have milk-secreting
glands.

Long before mammary glands evolved, tetrapods (land-dwelling
vertebrates -- although some modern tetrapods, like whales, have
reverted to aquatic life) had ears. Presumably they also had the
ability to make sounds, as threats, warnings, or mating calls. This
could be "exapted" (adaption of an existing ability or organ to a new
purpose) to alert parents once parents began exhibiting some degree of
care for their offspring.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
4. Tell me why did the baby grow? How did this happen? Why didn't it
stay as a baby?
Again, this is a question from developmental, rather than evolutionary,
biology, unless you will be content with "babies that stayed babies
would never reproduce and pass on their genes, so only babies with
genes for growing into adults would have babies of their own, with the
same genes."
Post by noteasily
5. How did the brain evolve? What did it start out as?
Presumably, as in modern jellyfish, as an extremely decentralized
network of specialized nerve cells, gradually becoming more centralized
to acommodate the input of information from increasingly sophisticated
eyes.
Jellyfish don't appear to be very smart. Why do they sting? What do
they eat? How do they reproduce? Are they part of the food chain? How
did the food chain evolve?
Jellyfish don't have brains. They sting because stinging made it
easier for their ancestors to stun and catch (and thereafter eat)
various small swimming animals. Yes, jellyfish are part of the food
chain; they eat things and things eat them. The food chain evolved
because an easy way to get nutritents is to take them from an organism
that has already taken them in and converted them into useful things
(i.e. by eating that organism). This can be done on several levels:
eating autotrophs (organisms that make their own food, like plants), or
eating heterotrophs (organisms that eat other organisms).
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
6. What came first - the chicken or the egg? If you agree with either
one of these answers then you are a Creationist. If you can explain
this theory with evolution - I would love to hear it.
Eggs have been around for half a billion years or more. Even
hard-shelled, "oval" eggs have been around since the days of the
dinosaurs from which chickens evolved (fossils of such eggs have been
recovered, in rare instances even with fossil embryos). Again, there
was no sharp dividing line between chickens and non-chickens, but if
you want a shorthand version, you can think of a nearly-chicken laying
a mutant egg from which a chicken hatched.
How would an old unhatched egg hatch into something. Please put any egg
outside, come back in 10 years and tell me what you have...again
impossible.
Again, lots of eggs hatch naturally without parental care. Bird eggs
tend not to, but birds are highly derived descendants of organisms not
all of which needed elaborate nests or nest tenders.
Post by noteasily
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
If you are an Evolutionist and cannot give at least one complete
answer, then you are a Creationist. Welcome to the club and God Bless
you!
And if you cannot answer your own questions about embrynic development,
you are a believer in storks who drop babies down the chimneys of
deserving couples. I suggest you not get a job teaching a sex-ed
course.
Post by noteasily
Don't worry, none of your so call experts can answer these questions or
the subsquent questions that would follow any answer. Please give up
and realize that your theory has more holes than stars in the heavens.
-- Steven J.
TimK
2006-12-17 14:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
I don't believe there was ever a blob - how did your microorganism
evolve into a baby -
If you can show me where a biologist says evolution = blob evolving into a
baby, I'll treat you with respect. Otherwise I shall just dismiss you as a
fucking moron.
hth
noteasily
2006-12-18 05:40:08 UTC
Permalink
I guess you haven't given this much thought...can you (or anyone)
please tell me how the first baby evolved - at the very beginning -
I'll take an explanation on anything; human, dog, shark, horse, cow,
tuna, lobster....or anything else...you're choice...or if can't come up
with anything, please feel free to lob insults.
Post by TimK
Post by noteasily
I don't believe there was ever a blob - how did your microorganism
evolve into a baby -
If you can show me where a biologist says evolution = blob evolving into a
baby, I'll treat you with respect. Otherwise I shall just dismiss you as a
fucking moron.
hth
Masked Avenger
2006-12-18 12:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
I guess you haven't given this much thought...can you (or anyone)
please tell me how the first baby evolved - at the very beginning -
I'll take an explanation on anything; human, dog, shark, horse, cow,
tuna, lobster....or anything else...you're choice...or if can't come up
with anything, please feel free to lob insults.
sigh ........ School Holidays have started early .......

does your mother know you are using her computer ? ......
Post by noteasily
Post by TimK
Post by noteasily
I don't believe there was ever a blob - how did your microorganism
evolve into a baby -
If you can show me where a biologist says evolution = blob evolving into a
baby, I'll treat you with respect. Otherwise I shall just dismiss you as a
fucking moron.
hth
--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
TimK
2006-12-19 21:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
I guess you haven't given this much thought...can you (or anyone)
please tell me how the first baby evolved -
Babies don't evolve, species do.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
idiot
user52
2006-12-16 21:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Maybe you should put your own beliefs under such scrutiny. How much can
you tell me about how your god did what he did? Or do you assume that
only science needs to explain things in the detail you ask for and you
can just blurt out "magic" or "super powers" when you are called to
defend your own beliefs?

There are question that are yet to be answered by evolution, relativity
and quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean we didn't evolve and that
there is no gravity or relationship between space and time. Obviously
we don't have all the answers, or we wouldn't be doing *research*. But
at least we are doing research, rather than covering up all gaps in
evolution with *poof* here and *poof* there, like the religious do.

Biologists, physicists and others are still working to strengthen our
understanding of the universe. It takes more than appealing to
ignorance to bring down a theory. Just because we don't know the 4+
billion year history of evolution, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If
everyone had that kind of attitude, theories would never be developed
in the first place.

At first, Einstein's theory or relativity didn't even incorporate
gravity. And even now, it can't explain the fundamental particles that
make us all. But that isn't enough to prove it wrong. And even when/if
it is superseded by a greater theory, most of it, like Newtonian
Mechanics, will still hold true. And it doesn't even have anything near
the amount of data to support it as The Theory of Evolution does.

You can't completely destroy such well tested theories, even the
outdated ones that have been left in the dust generations ago. Science
isn't just an answer. It is a tool. An outdated theory, is basically a
simpler tool. It's still useful, and sometimes, even more useful than a
more complex and newer tool. If you want to understand lifeforms or the
trajectory of a missile, then the theories we have now will always be
useful. Creationism doesn't help us in that department. It's a poor
tool for research and prediction.
noteasily
2006-12-16 23:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Nice post.

The problem that I have with Evolution theory is that it has too many
questions to be factual, and it is presented as factual. It would
easier to believe that we were dropped here by space aliens than the
world, the galaxies, and everything in it is one big accidental
occurence after another.

I think anyone who is looking objectively, would agree that everything
is too complex to have evolved by happenstance.

I can tell you that God did create everything - Genesis 1:1 to 1:31.
Post by user52
Maybe you should put your own beliefs under such scrutiny. How much can
you tell me about how your god did what he did? Or do you assume that
only science needs to explain things in the detail you ask for and you
can just blurt out "magic" or "super powers" when you are called to
defend your own beliefs?
There are question that are yet to be answered by evolution, relativity
and quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean we didn't evolve and that
there is no gravity or relationship between space and time. Obviously
we don't have all the answers, or we wouldn't be doing *research*. But
at least we are doing research, rather than covering up all gaps in
evolution with *poof* here and *poof* there, like the religious do.
Biologists, physicists and others are still working to strengthen our
understanding of the universe. It takes more than appealing to
ignorance to bring down a theory. Just because we don't know the 4+
billion year history of evolution, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If
everyone had that kind of attitude, theories would never be developed
in the first place.
At first, Einstein's theory or relativity didn't even incorporate
gravity. And even now, it can't explain the fundamental particles that
make us all. But that isn't enough to prove it wrong. And even when/if
it is superseded by a greater theory, most of it, like Newtonian
Mechanics, will still hold true. And it doesn't even have anything near
the amount of data to support it as The Theory of Evolution does.
You can't completely destroy such well tested theories, even the
outdated ones that have been left in the dust generations ago. Science
isn't just an answer. It is a tool. An outdated theory, is basically a
simpler tool. It's still useful, and sometimes, even more useful than a
more complex and newer tool. If you want to understand lifeforms or the
trajectory of a missile, then the theories we have now will always be
useful. Creationism doesn't help us in that department. It's a poor
tool for research and prediction.
Free Lunch
2006-12-17 00:20:08 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Dec 2006 15:24:33 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
Nice post.
The problem that I have with Evolution theory is that it has too many
questions to be factual,
Once again, you prove your ignorance. You don't get to claim that
science is false just because you have no idea what has been discovered.
Post by noteasily
and it is presented as factual.
That is because the evidence for evolution is factual, unlike your
meaningless objections.
Post by noteasily
It would
easier to believe that we were dropped here by space aliens than the
world, the galaxies, and everything in it is one big accidental
occurence after another.
That inability to understand comes from your ignorance. Why don't you
stop wasting time showing us how ignorant you are and go get an
education about science.
Post by noteasily
I think anyone who is looking objectively, would agree that everything
is too complex to have evolved by happenstance.
Your thinking is mistaken.
Post by noteasily
I can tell you that God did create everything - Genesis 1:1 to 1:31.
What about the next creation story in Genesis 2? What about the
completely bogus Flood Story or the erroneous explanation for languages
in the Babel story? How many of these stories do you think you should
claim are science or history when the evidence proves they are not true
as such?

Why do you continue to rudely top post?
Post by noteasily
Post by user52
Maybe you should put your own beliefs under such scrutiny. How much can
you tell me about how your god did what he did? Or do you assume that
only science needs to explain things in the detail you ask for and you
can just blurt out "magic" or "super powers" when you are called to
defend your own beliefs?
There are question that are yet to be answered by evolution, relativity
and quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean we didn't evolve and that
there is no gravity or relationship between space and time. Obviously
we don't have all the answers, or we wouldn't be doing *research*. But
at least we are doing research, rather than covering up all gaps in
evolution with *poof* here and *poof* there, like the religious do.
Biologists, physicists and others are still working to strengthen our
understanding of the universe. It takes more than appealing to
ignorance to bring down a theory. Just because we don't know the 4+
billion year history of evolution, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If
everyone had that kind of attitude, theories would never be developed
in the first place.
At first, Einstein's theory or relativity didn't even incorporate
gravity. And even now, it can't explain the fundamental particles that
make us all. But that isn't enough to prove it wrong. And even when/if
it is superseded by a greater theory, most of it, like Newtonian
Mechanics, will still hold true. And it doesn't even have anything near
the amount of data to support it as The Theory of Evolution does.
You can't completely destroy such well tested theories, even the
outdated ones that have been left in the dust generations ago. Science
isn't just an answer. It is a tool. An outdated theory, is basically a
simpler tool. It's still useful, and sometimes, even more useful than a
more complex and newer tool. If you want to understand lifeforms or the
trajectory of a missile, then the theories we have now will always be
useful. Creationism doesn't help us in that department. It's a poor
tool for research and prediction.
Øien
2006-12-17 01:40:01 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Dec 2006 15:24:33 -0800, "noteasily" <***@impresse.us> wrote:

Nice post.

The problem that I have with Evolution theory is that it has too many
questions to be factual, and it is presented as factual. It would
easier to believe that we were dropped here by space aliens than the
world, the galaxies, and everything in it is one big accidental
occurence after another.

I think anyone who is looking objectively, would agree that everything
is too complex to have evolved by happenstance.

I can tell you that God did create everything - Genesis 1:1 to 1:31.


<>
Come on -- be honest. You've never touched a biology book -- have you?
Your just a parrot who mouths what somebody else says without having the
balls to check it out yourself. Your silly little assertions convict
you of complete ignorance of evolution. The world always appears
complicated to simple minds. Why don't you get your GED?
<>
Post by user52
Maybe you should put your own beliefs under such scrutiny. How much can
you tell me about how your god did what he did? Or do you assume that
only science needs to explain things in the detail you ask for and you
can just blurt out "magic" or "super powers" when you are called to
defend your own beliefs?
There are question that are yet to be answered by evolution,
relativity
Post by user52
and quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean we didn't evolve and that
there is no gravity or relationship between space and time. Obviously
we don't have all the answers, or we wouldn't be doing *research*. But
at least we are doing research, rather than covering up all gaps in
evolution with *poof* here and *poof* there, like the religious do.
Biologists, physicists and others are still working to strengthen our
understanding of the universe. It takes more than appealing to
ignorance to bring down a theory. Just because we don't know the 4+
billion year history of evolution, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If
everyone had that kind of attitude, theories would never be developed
in the first place.
At first, Einstein's theory or relativity didn't even incorporate
gravity. And even now, it can't explain the fundamental particles that
make us all. But that isn't enough to prove it wrong. And even when/if
it is superseded by a greater theory, most of it, like Newtonian
Mechanics, will still hold true. And it doesn't even have anything near
the amount of data to support it as The Theory of Evolution does.
You can't completely destroy such well tested theories, even the
outdated ones that have been left in the dust generations ago. Science
isn't just an answer. It is a tool. An outdated theory, is basically a
simpler tool. It's still useful, and sometimes, even more useful than a
more complex and newer tool. If you want to understand lifeforms or the
trajectory of a missile, then the theories we have now will always be
useful. Creationism doesn't help us in that department. It's a poor
tool for research and prediction.
TimK
2006-12-17 14:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
Nice post.
The problem that I have with Evolution theory is that it has too many
questions to be factual, and it is presented as factual. It would
easier to believe that we were dropped here by space aliens than the
world, the galaxies, and everything in it is one big accidental
occurence after another.
Evolution=change in gene frequency over time.
We know gene frequencies change over time
Evolution is a fact.
Deal with it.
noteasily
2006-12-17 16:55:30 UTC
Permalink
To the group: Just what I expected - mostly insults, a couple of
hypothetical ideas, but NO answers. I gave you guys six questions and
received zero answers that are possibilities.

Here is THE fact: You guys live in a designed world. Just the fact that
you can see and comprehend the written word is one of trillions of
miracles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everything in this world/galaxy to have
happened accidentally. Deal with it!

Go ahead bring on the insults...NOTEASILY insulted!

God Bless you and Merrry Christmas!!!
Post by TimK
Post by noteasily
Nice post.
The problem that I have with Evolution theory is that it has too many
questions to be factual, and it is presented as factual. It would
easier to believe that we were dropped here by space aliens than the
world, the galaxies, and everything in it is one big accidental
occurence after another.
Evolution=change in gene frequency over time.
We know gene frequencies change over time
Evolution is a fact.
Deal with it.
TimK
2006-12-17 17:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
To the group: Just what I expected - mostly insults, a couple of
hypothetical ideas, but NO answers. I gave you guys six questions and
received zero answers that are possibilities.
Here is THE fact: You guys live in a designed world. Just the fact that
you can see and comprehend the written word is one of trillions of
miracles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everything in this world/galaxy to have
happened accidentally. Deal with it!
Go ahead bring on the insults...NOTEASILY insulted!
God Bless you and Merrry Christmas!!!
Evolution=change in gene frequency over time.
We know gene frequencies change over time

Refute that.
Please.
Steven J.
2006-12-17 22:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
To the group: Just what I expected - mostly insults, a couple of
hypothetical ideas, but NO answers. I gave you guys six questions and
received zero answers that are possibilities.
Your questions were barely coherent. It was a labor merely to
interpret them, much less answer them, and your impressions of what is
and is not possible are not the same thing as what actually is possible
or not possible.

You open a thread with insults and accusations, show no indication that
you have actually learned anything about the ideas you reject or that
you wish to, ask questions that are barely intelligible and change the
subject when someone tries to answer, and then express astonishment
that you receive insults in return.
Post by noteasily
Here is THE fact: You guys live in a designed world. Just the fact that
you can see and comprehend the written word is one of trillions of
miracles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everything in this world/galaxy to have
happened accidentally. Deal with it!
So if you and I were living in a preliterate society (such as many
tribes in the interior of Papua New Guinea today, or most villages on
Earth a few centuries ago), there would be one fewer miracle in the
world? But never mind. No one is contending that everything in the
universe happened "accidentally." Natural selection is not
"accidental;" it is neither a process of random chance, on the one
hand, nor aiming for a goal which it might accidentally miss, on the
other.

There is a great deal of evidence for evolution (I mean, here,
biological evolution; there is also a great deal of evidence for the
Big Bang and geological evolution, but they are not the subjects of
what is commonly called "evolutionary theory"). You might be
interested in reading (or, then again, you might not) the "29+
Evidences for Evolution" FAQ at talk.origins archive:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>. Evolutionary theory, to be
sure, does not account for where oxygen, or the Earth, or galaxies, or
the original life form, came from. It is not intended to. Note that
evolution (common descent with modification) can be determined to have
happened, regardless of questions about the mechanisms or fine details
of the process.

Note also that some of your questions have been answered, and that if
you really wished to know what answers evolutionists had for them, you
could look them up.

You say that we live in a "designed world." How was it designed?
Known sorts of designers use a mixture of trial and error and
variations on past art (rather like evolution, in fact); they need
material means (books, notepads, writing and drawing utensils, etc.)
just to produce the design. They need other material means to
implement the design. How does a Designer of the entire universe
(which, after all, contains all the material means we know of) go about
creating and implementing a design? It seems to me that if you can't
answer this question, in detail, you are in the same condition
evolutionists are in when asked for details of how life originated, or
of each step in the evolution of some structure or system.
Post by noteasily
Go ahead bring on the insults...NOTEASILY insulted!
The easiest way to be not easily insulted, is to be as bad as, or worse
than, people accuse you of being.
Post by noteasily
God Bless you and Merrry Christmas!!!
Post by TimK
Post by noteasily
Nice post.
The problem that I have with Evolution theory is that it has too many
questions to be factual, and it is presented as factual. It would
easier to believe that we were dropped here by space aliens than the
world, the galaxies, and everything in it is one big accidental
occurence after another.
Evolution=change in gene frequency over time.
We know gene frequencies change over time
Evolution is a fact.
Deal with it.
-- Steven J.
noteasily
2006-12-18 06:17:47 UTC
Permalink
I read some of your weblink and i found this guy who refutes all of the
information...check it out: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Post by Steven J.
Post by noteasily
To the group: Just what I expected - mostly insults, a couple of
hypothetical ideas, but NO answers. I gave you guys six questions and
received zero answers that are possibilities.
Your questions were barely coherent. It was a labor merely to
interpret them, much less answer them, and your impressions of what is
and is not possible are not the same thing as what actually is possible
or not possible.
You open a thread with insults and accusations, show no indication that
you have actually learned anything about the ideas you reject or that
you wish to, ask questions that are barely intelligible and change the
subject when someone tries to answer, and then express astonishment
that you receive insults in return.
Post by noteasily
Here is THE fact: You guys live in a designed world. Just the fact that
you can see and comprehend the written word is one of trillions of
miracles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everything in this world/galaxy to have
happened accidentally. Deal with it!
So if you and I were living in a preliterate society (such as many
tribes in the interior of Papua New Guinea today, or most villages on
Earth a few centuries ago), there would be one fewer miracle in the
world? But never mind. No one is contending that everything in the
universe happened "accidentally." Natural selection is not
"accidental;" it is neither a process of random chance, on the one
hand, nor aiming for a goal which it might accidentally miss, on the
other.
There is a great deal of evidence for evolution (I mean, here,
biological evolution; there is also a great deal of evidence for the
Big Bang and geological evolution, but they are not the subjects of
what is commonly called "evolutionary theory"). You might be
interested in reading (or, then again, you might not) the "29+
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>. Evolutionary theory, to be
sure, does not account for where oxygen, or the Earth, or galaxies, or
the original life form, came from. It is not intended to. Note that
evolution (common descent with modification) can be determined to have
happened, regardless of questions about the mechanisms or fine details
of the process.
Note also that some of your questions have been answered, and that if
you really wished to know what answers evolutionists had for them, you
could look them up.
You say that we live in a "designed world." How was it designed?
Known sorts of designers use a mixture of trial and error and
variations on past art (rather like evolution, in fact); they need
material means (books, notepads, writing and drawing utensils, etc.)
just to produce the design. They need other material means to
implement the design. How does a Designer of the entire universe
(which, after all, contains all the material means we know of) go about
creating and implementing a design? It seems to me that if you can't
answer this question, in detail, you are in the same condition
evolutionists are in when asked for details of how life originated, or
of each step in the evolution of some structure or system.
Post by noteasily
Go ahead bring on the insults...NOTEASILY insulted!
The easiest way to be not easily insulted, is to be as bad as, or worse
than, people accuse you of being.
Post by noteasily
God Bless you and Merrry Christmas!!!
Post by TimK
Post by noteasily
Nice post.
The problem that I have with Evolution theory is that it has too many
questions to be factual, and it is presented as factual. It would
easier to believe that we were dropped here by space aliens than the
world, the galaxies, and everything in it is one big accidental
occurence after another.
Evolution=change in gene frequency over time.
We know gene frequencies change over time
Evolution is a fact.
Deal with it.
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
2006-12-18 07:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
I read some of your weblink and i found this guy who refutes all of the
information...check it out: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
It must not have been very hard to find that "refutation;" it is linked
to on the very first page of Douglas Theobald's FAQ. So, of course, is
Theobald's rebuttal of the alleged refutation.
-- [snip]
-- Steven J.
Free Lunch
2006-12-17 23:50:46 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Dec 2006 08:55:30 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
To the group: Just what I expected - mostly insults, a couple of
hypothetical ideas, but NO answers. I gave you guys six questions and
received zero answers that are possibilities.
You are a demonstrated liar.
Post by noteasily
Here is THE fact: You guys live in a designed world.
That is not a fact and you have no evidence to support it.
Post by noteasily
Just the fact that
you can see and comprehend the written word is one of trillions of
miracles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everything in this world/galaxy to have
happened accidentally. Deal with it!
Go ahead bring on the insults...NOTEASILY insulted!
God Bless you and Merrry Christmas!!!
You mock God with your lies.

...
noteasily
2006-12-18 05:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On 17 Dec 2006 08:55:30 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
To the group: Just what I expected - mostly insults, a couple of
hypothetical ideas, but NO answers. I gave you guys six questions and
received zero answers that are possibilities.
You are a demonstrated liar.
Never lie, just observe.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by noteasily
Here is THE fact: You guys live in a designed world.
That is not a fact and you have no evidence to support it.
The evidence is obvious - look at: the food you eat, babies, sex
between a man and a woman, the sun (don't actually look at the sun),
the moon, the ocean, rain, DNA, flys, sharks....on and on...you get the
idea here....evolution is impossible and it's a lie, you're theory is
that all of these things were created by random selection from one
lucky microorganism (or whatever)...this thought is ridiculous.

Some day, when you die (hopefully before then), you WILL acknowledge
your Creator.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by noteasily
Just the fact that
you can see and comprehend the written word is one of trillions of
miracles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everything in this world/galaxy to have
happened accidentally. Deal with it!
Go ahead bring on the insults...NOTEASILY insulted!
God Bless you and Merrry Christmas!!!
You mock God with your lies.
So you believe in God, great start...I will pray for you!
Post by Free Lunch
...
Free Lunch
2006-12-18 05:42:48 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Dec 2006 21:27:13 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
Post by Free Lunch
On 17 Dec 2006 08:55:30 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Post by noteasily
To the group: Just what I expected - mostly insults, a couple of
hypothetical ideas, but NO answers. I gave you guys six questions and
received zero answers that are possibilities.
You are a demonstrated liar.
Never lie, just observe.
I have. That is why I know that you have repeated lies.
Post by noteasily
Post by Free Lunch
Post by noteasily
Here is THE fact: You guys live in a designed world.
That is not a fact and you have no evidence to support it.
The evidence is obvious - look at: the food you eat, babies, sex
between a man and a woman, the sun (don't actually look at the sun),
the moon, the ocean, rain, DNA, flys, sharks....on and on...you get the
idea here....evolution is impossible and it's a lie, you're theory is
that all of these things were created by random selection from one
lucky microorganism (or whatever)...this thought is ridiculous.
The universe is beyond your comprehension so there must be a god.

Sorry about your problems with the world, I hope the rest of it isn't
too tough for you to handle.
Post by noteasily
Some day, when you die (hopefully before then), you WILL acknowledge
your Creator.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by noteasily
Just the fact that
you can see and comprehend the written word is one of trillions of
miracles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everything in this world/galaxy to have
happened accidentally. Deal with it!
Go ahead bring on the insults...NOTEASILY insulted!
God Bless you and Merrry Christmas!!!
You mock God with your lies.
So you believe in God, great start...I will pray for you!
Post by Free Lunch
...
TimK
2006-12-19 21:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
The evidence is obvious - look at: the food you eat, babies, sex
between a man and a woman, the sun (don't actually look at the sun),
the moon, the ocean, rain, DNA, flys, sharks....on and on...you get the
idea here....evolution is impossible and it's a lie, you're theory is
that all of these things were created by random
Evolution doesn't equal random.
Again, you are clueless.

Thurisaz the Einherjer
2006-12-17 06:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
1. When we evolved from microcosms (or whatever you think they were)-
which of our body functions came first - pulmonary, reproductive,
nervous system or digestive (that's enough for this exercise).
When all your bullshitty "arguments" got debunked about 7 gazillion times on
this newsgroup alone, where have you been?
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."

My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
John Baker
2006-12-18 22:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by noteasily
There are of a lot of so called educated people that think they're
smart - I see them as blind followers. No one can explain their
theories, all they can do is throw out general statements that they
cannot back up or prove.
Of course we can. Your inability to understand the explanations is
your problem, not ours.

<remaining drivel snipped>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...