EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

[Guest guest]

absolutely

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > On 9/11/06, <bible770@...

> >> <mailto:bible770%40bellsouth.net> > wrote:

> >>> > > " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each

> other, and

> >>> grown people molest little kids.

> >> > <etc>

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I think by the emails,,,it is evident who the " evil " one is here.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> > ³

> >>>> >> > you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person

> of

> Jesus

> >>> >> Christ.

> >>>> >> > The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching

> the Lord

> leave

> > on

> >>>> >> > a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this

> same

> Jesus

> >>> >> you

> >>>> >> > see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see

> Him as

> He >>

> > was.

> >>>> >> > So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even

> before the

> Lord

> >>> >> came

> >>>> >> > to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has

> >>>> hands.........look

> > in

> >>>> >> > the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth

> fingers

> of

> a

> >>> >> man's

> >>>> >> > hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster

> of the

> wall

> > of

> >>>> >> > the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that

> >>>> wrote " ....and

> > so

> >>>> >> > on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these.

> >>>> >> > Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply

> that

> man

> >>> >> evolved

> >>>> >> > from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you

> were to

> >>> >> summarize

> >>>> >> > it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

> >>>> >> > ²

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> > I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You

> can

> take

> your

> >>>> >> > Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the

> proverbial sun

> don¹t

> >>>> >> > shine. And I mean that respectfully.

> >> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Well you really hit the nail on the head here. This is a symptom of lack of

faith. Religious people who lack faith tend to over value the importance of

their beliefs. Many don't realise the two are not the same.

A few hundred years ago it was a huge matter of " faith " that the earth was

the center of the universe. Yet we discovered that indeed the earth went

around the sun and somehow religion survived, and we did not become a

godless world because of it. It became the non issue that it really is.

Irene

At 10:58 AM 9/4/06, you wrote:

>I've never been able to figure out what so many christians find

>threatening about evolution... why can't some sort of evolution be the

>mechanism of creation? Is it that we'd then be sullied somehow by

>monkey blood? So much energy gets expended in creating this vast

>apparatus of denial. It'll end up exactly like the flat earth

>argument and the denial of a heliocentric solar system-- people will

>finally realize it's a total non-issue with respect to faith in the

>christian god and they'll look back and giggle at those who denied it

>with such vigor.

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/06, Irene <Irene10@...> wrote:

> Well you really hit the nail on the head here. This is a symptom of lack of

> faith. Religious people who lack faith tend to over value the importance of

> their beliefs. Many don't realise the two are not the same.

> A few hundred years ago it was a huge matter of " faith " that the earth was

> the center of the universe. Yet we discovered that indeed the earth went

> around the sun and somehow religion survived, and we did not become a

> godless world because of it. It became the non issue that it really is.

The funny thing is that these stupid and irrational beliefs have

nothing to do with traditional Christian belief. They have more to do

with the falling apart of government, trans-European communication and

the loss of the Greek language in the West, and the incorporation of

illiteracy and ignorance into Christianity as a result.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Hi

> > Yes, the laws of physics demonstrate predictable order. However, the

> > entropy of the universe is always increasing <g>.

>

> I'm not sure what you intend this to mean. Are you using the

> deliberate creationist distortion of the concept of entropy here?

Well, yes, at the time that was my joke. I related two unrelated things

for fun - amazing that you caught that. However, the early universe was

highly ordered and thus low entropy, fwiw.

> > The arrow of time is

> > a consideration here. Interestingly, temporal direction is not

> > demonstrated in the laws of nature, yet we see time marching on in one

> > distinct direction. But this is a big tangent I won't address unless

> > pressed.

>

> I'm not sure what you're talking about, I guess because the esoteric

> piece of philosophizing is out of my subject area. If you'd like to

> explain, I'll read on, but won't press you. Rest assured that I won't

> have the slightest idea what you mean until you elaborate.

Is physics out of your subject area as well, cuz I wasn't

philosophizing, I was talking physics. I started off talking about

entropy, and entropy is the only law that demonstrates an arrow of time

(and above I should have said, " ...demonstrated in the OTHER laws of

nature). It's basically why we don't see ice cubes assembling

themselves in cups of water, or cream separating out of coffee. Anyhoo,

the work is getting piled on higher here in Deannaland, so that's all I

have time for now, I am afraid. Check out physics materials for more

info. I just bought _The Arrow of Time: A Voyage Through Science to

Solve Time's Greatest Mystery_, by Coveney and Highfield.

And I only hope that I have time enough to read it soon.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> Is physics out of your subject area as well, cuz I wasn't

> philosophizing, I was talking physics. I started off talking about

> entropy, and entropy is the only law that demonstrates an arrow of time

> (and above I should have said, " ...demonstrated in the OTHER laws of

> nature). It's basically why we don't see ice cubes assembling

> themselves in cups of water, or cream separating out of coffee.

Or heads reassembling after they've exploded...

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 9/11/06, Irene <Irene10@...> wrote:

> > Well you really hit the nail on the head here. This is a symptom of lack of

> > faith. Religious people who lack faith tend to over value the importance of

> > their beliefs. Many don't realise the two are not the same.

> > A few hundred years ago it was a huge matter of " faith " that the earth was

> > the center of the universe. Yet we discovered that indeed the earth went

> > around the sun and somehow religion survived, and we did not become a

> > godless world because of it. It became the non issue that it really is.

>

> The funny thing is that these stupid and irrational beliefs have

> nothing to do with traditional Christian belief. They have more to do

> with the falling apart of government, trans-European communication and

> the loss of the Greek language in the West, and the incorporation of

> illiteracy and ignorance into Christianity as a result.

>

> Chris

Damn it I said I'd stop but suddenly a real conversation:

Not to mention the reactions to gnosticism (and orality?* and other

factors?) which I see as having set the church against the notions of

wisdom and personal spiritual experience. Reason coupled with genuine

personal spiritual experience, interpretation of parable and the like,

the actual living religion all gave way to a dead, static, imposed

form that atrophied into the various dogmatic literalist groups we're

confronted with today (way simplistic, I know, but this is a summary).

Thought is no longer allowed, there is no interpretation. Today this

is enforced in part through strict literal reading of scripture,

despite the fact that most are reading English translations at least

twice removed from " originals, " which were themselves transcriptions

or interpretations of oral traditions. God's word filtered through

human minds and cultural forces.

Couple this with the mushrooming ease of vacuous communication brought

by technology, the lowest-common-denominator " expression " seen somehow

as a cultural value (rock the vote, dummy) in dead western democracies

and the death throes of a superpower (doomsday religion and decline go

hand in hand) and we're left with the nightmare of fundamentalist

Christianity.

But maybe I just lack faith in those who would tell us how to believe

as if they knew.

(* been reading _The Oral and the Written Gospel_ by Werner Kelber)

[Guest guest]

>It's basically why we don't see ice cubes assembling

> > themselves in cups of water, or cream separating out of coffee.

>

> Or heads reassembling after they've exploded...

Hey gal, don't tell me you've blown your top?

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/06, Deanna <WAPFbaby@...> wrote:

> Well, yes, at the time that was my joke. I related two unrelated things

> for fun - amazing that you caught that. However, the early universe was

> highly ordered and thus low entropy, fwiw.

I thought that was your joke, but I was just making sure. The early

universe may have been highly ordered in its totality, but it lacked

many highly ordered open systems present today.

> > I'm not sure what you're talking about, I guess because the esoteric

> > piece of philosophizing is out of my subject area. If you'd like to

> > explain, I'll read on, but won't press you. Rest assured that I won't

> > have the slightest idea what you mean until you elaborate.

> Is physics out of your subject area as well, cuz I wasn't

> philosophizing, I was talking physics.

I'm not sure you weren't philosophizing, but I was referring to

physics, not philosophy, as being out of my subject area.

> I started off talking about

> entropy, and entropy is the only law that demonstrates an arrow of time

> (and above I should have said, " ...demonstrated in the OTHER laws of

> nature). It's basically why we don't see ice cubes assembling

> themselves in cups of water, or cream separating out of coffee.

I disagree. Cream separates out of coffee if the coffee sits for a

while and liquid water sponteneously freezes whenever its cold enough.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> > Is physics out of your subject area as well, cuz I wasn't

> > philosophizing, I was talking physics.

> I'm not sure you weren't philosophizing, but I was referring to

> physics, not philosophy, as being out of my subject area.

By the way, I wasn't using the word " philosophizing " to denigrate what

you were saying. What I meant to say is that I could not immediately

grasp philosophizing derived from physics in the same way I could

grasp philosophizing derived from, say, biology.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Yes, thanks to gravity, highly ordered systems like galaxies evolve

that can support highly ordered organisms, all with entropy increasing

in the whole enchilada of the universe.

> I disagree. Cream separates out of coffee if the coffee sits for a

> while and liquid water sponteneously freezes whenever its cold enough.

>

> Chris

Oh, you know what I mean. Okay, broken eggs don't reassemble

themselves (or exploded pieces of head). Ponds don't freeze on a hot

day (in the Kelvin-Planck statement: A transformation whose only final

result is to transform into work heat extracted from a source that is

at the same temperature is impossible). Coffee and cream was a poor

example - coffee and skim milk would have been better, and I meant

separating in a spectacular way, not a floating of fat after time.

The melting of ice in a cup of water sitting at 80 degrees F happens

in one time direction - the future. As Greene states in _The

Fabric of the Cosmos_, " Entropic reasoning yields accurate and

sensible conclusions when applied in one time direction, toward what

we call the future, but gives apparently inaccurate and seemingly

ridicuouls conclusions when applied toward what we call the past. " He

covers the subject of the arrow of time better than I can any day!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> By the way, I wasn't using the word " philosophizing " to denigrate what

> you were saying. What I meant to say is that I could not immediately

> grasp philosophizing derived from physics in the same way I could

> grasp philosophizing derived from, say, biology.

>

> Chris

No offense taken, Sugar. But I think you don't give yourself enough

credit. You could get into philosophizing physics just fine, I'm

sure, should you ever get the chance.

And besides, you are probably afraid to spar with me now, seeing how I

am well on my way to getting a black belt in Taekwondo <weg>.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

You have a double standard. When you quote from 1972, it is relevant.

When I do, it is outdated. You are having trouble seeing how

unreasonable it is to assert that decades of past observation by

scientists cannot be invalidated by currant observations AND it be

reasonable for people to believe in evolution throughout the past

decades.

[Guest guest]

>

> In the sense of the truth of its claims, one set of religious

> beliefs *is* superior. There is either one God, no God or many

> Gods, etc., independent of what any individual believes.

Thank god we can test this empirically. That is a very strange statement I

think, that there is a fact of the matter as to the exact disposition of God.

Most people, I think, simply grab the same opinion on the matter as their

parents, so I guess it is the beliefs of your parents that have the greatest

probability of condemning you to hell, eh?

>That said,

> the Bible states unequivocally that it is not the place of men to

> judge the condition of another man's soul. There is, of course, the

> Great Commission that commands Christians to spread the good news of

> Jesus and a perfectly holy, gracious, just and loving God. But

> proclaiming what you believe and why, and even why you don't believe

> an alternative, is not intolerance. >

I did not say at any time that the mere statement of belief constituted

intolerance. Please quote me.

[Guest guest]

,

have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Dr. Kent Hovind? He served as

an educator for many years teaching Biology, Anatomy, Physical Science,

Mathematics, Earth Science, and many other sciences. With my " ignorance " of

evolution, I have commissioned his help. He is sending me a 7 disc series on

Creation and Evolution. Just from a sample cd that someone gave me yesterday

at Church, I was absolutely impressed. He did hit on your statement about

evolution and Hitler, and how it was his knowledge of evolution that caused him

to want to " create the perfect race " . From all the conversations here

concerning this matter, yours has made the most sense. Without having studied

the series yet, on the demo disc he also talks about carbon dating and talks in

details and proves errors in the science and biology books. One thing that

stood out last night was the grand canyon. The science books teach that the

Colorado River formed the grand canyon over millions of years, but he goes in

and proves that there is no way it could have happened that way, that is was a

flood that created it. I'm very excited about watching the cd's and if I have

questions, I will address them to you, if that is ok.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

You have a double standard. When you quote from 1972, it is relevant.

When I do, it is outdated. You are having trouble seeing how

unreasonable it is to assert that decades of past observation by

scientists cannot be invalidated by currant observations AND it be

reasonable for people to believe in evolution throughout the past

decades.

[Guest guest]

Of course, I can't vouch one way or the other for the quote below, but I find it

humorous nonetheless:

" Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from

Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation

was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools.

Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado,

Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of

Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for

a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues

to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog

contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their

credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3].

"

--------- Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

>

> You have a double standard. When you quote from 1972, it is relevant.

> When I do, it is outdated. You are having trouble seeing how

> unreasonable it is to assert that decades of past observation by

> scientists cannot be invalidated by currant observations AND it be

> reasonable for people to believe in evolution throughout the past

> decades.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

> You have a double standard. When you quote from 1972, it is relevant.

Can you give any example of anything I cited earlier than 2004? I

can't think of anything.

> When I do, it is outdated.

If I had dismissed your presentation based on the age of the research

it was based on, this would be a valid criticism. Yet I did not do

that.

Instead, I pointed out as an *introduction* to the discussion of the

substance of your post that you were presenting a set of observations

as " unsolved problems " as if they were currently unsolved problems.

When DeBeer wrote his book one year before his death in 1971, they

were unsolved; when Ed discovered the first homeotic gene in

1978, they were no longer unsolved.

Thus, had you presented the issue in light of the understanding of

embryology we gained after 1978, your argument would not have been

outdated no matter how old a portion of the research you relied on

was.

But the more important point is that I did not dismiss your argument

based on the fact that it was outdated. Instead, I explained

specifically why it was flawed, backed this up with both logic and

observation.

============

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul25/articles10.htm (Reference for date

of homeotic gene discovery).

============

> You are having trouble seeing how

> unreasonable it is to assert that decades of past observation by

> scientists cannot be invalidated by currant observations AND it be

> reasonable for people to believe in evolution throughout the past

> decades.

Nothing that the evolutionist you cited wrote in the 1970s is negated

by current research. The argument that YOU are making from his work

that requires your ignoring of all embryology post-1978 is invalidated

by current research.

My argument in my last post does not rely in any way whatsoever on a

criticism of the outdatedness of your argument. I will post it again

for you with the reference to the date deleted in order to assist in

making this clear.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>

> ,

> have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Dr. Kent Hovind?

Great guy. He has been arrested for doing evil, er um, God's work:

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01/6\

07140333/1006

" A Pensacola evangelist who owns the defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land

in Pensacola was arrested Thursday on 58 federal charges, including

failing to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes and making threats

against investigators.

" Of the 58 charges, 44 were filed against Kent Hovind and his wife,

Jo, for evading bank reporting requirements as they withdrew $430,500

from AmSouth Bank between July 20, 2001, and Aug. 9, 2002. "

Sorry for the long url, but I couldn't access the snipper just now.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> " Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from

>Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation

>was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools.

>Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado,

>Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting

Association of

>Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides

accreditation for a

>$100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues

>to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The

school's catalog

>contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their

>credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a

degree mill [3]. "

If this is true, it would be better to get one's information from

Wells who has a PhD in molecular biology from a real

university -- UCal Berkley.

His own description of the scientific aspirations that led to his

pursuit of this degree make quite clear that he would be an objective

source of information:

=========

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_0.html

[Rev. Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me

that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of

my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to

destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen

other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed

the opportunity to prepare myself for battle….

As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian

theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I

wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution

and Christian doctrine….

When I finished my Yale Ph.D., I felt confident that I understood the

theological basis of the conflict between Darwinism and theism.

But Darwinism was clearly winning the ideological battle in the

universities, the public schools, and the mass media, largely because

it claimed to be supported by scientific evidence. I knew enough about

biology to know that this claim was quite shaky, but few scientists

were willing to challenge it. Those who did were often lumped together

with young-earth biblical fundamentalists and thereby discredited in

the eyes of most scholars.

I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school

in biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of

Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one

understands how they develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D.

program, this time in biology, at the University of California at

Berkeley….

=============

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

,

Here is the edited version of my response to your embryology argument.

I'd appreciate a response to the substance of this.

> The a common evolutionary model holds that gradual transitions from

> one species to another over time caused the development of lower

> organisms to higher organisms producing the groups of extremely

> diverse living things we observe today.

Good so far.

> If this were true we would

> also expect development from egg through embryo to follow these

> gradual developments.

Not exactly. This sounds to me like Haeckel's idea of the organism

recapitulating its evolutionary history as an embryo. This was

abandoned long ago, as you pointed out in one of your first posts.

Descent can be modified at any point in development, which is why we

do not expect to observe this.

> This would indicate that the genetic material

> responsible for the forelimbs of animals, for example, would be

> represented from their corresponding genes in corresponding origins of

> the embryos.

Yes -- good!

> What has actually been observed in developing embryos and from there

> genes is that there is not this gradual embryonic development as as

> anything that would be expected.

>

> " It does not matter where in the egg or the embryo the living

> substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from.

> Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be

> pressed back to similarity of position if the cells of the embryo or

> the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately

> differentiated " (Homology: An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University

> Press, by Sir Gavin De Beer).

Unfortunately, you have leaped from the correct prediction that we

would expect homologous structures to be under homologous genetic

control to the idea that we would expect to see them generated from

the same region of the embryo.

Your premise is fatally flawed. It is, in fact, entirely refuted by a

single observation to which I have already referred: In Drosophila

(fruit fly), a mutation in the homeotic gene for the legs (that is,

the gene that controls the embryonic placement of the legs) causes

them to grow out of the head in place of the antennae.

By your reasoning, we could infer that this fruit fly did not descend

from a fruit fly that had the correct positioning of the legs because

its legs originated from a different region of the gastrula during

embryonic development. We directly observe, however, that this

particular fruit fly descends from the normal fruit fly, striking the

fatal blow to your premise.

The reason your premise does not work is that cells of the embryo are

not yet differentiated. There is nothing different about the cells in

the top, middle, or bottom of the layers of the blastula until they

receive a signal differentiating them into endoderm, mesoderm and

ectoderm. These cells at all time share the exact same genome. There

is yet still no permanent differentiation, and what differentiation

has taken place can then revert. There is additionally nothing

different about the cells within these layers until they are in turn

differentiated.

Thus, the positioning of the cell is NOT the origin of the structure.

What controls that cell's differentiation is the origin of the

structure. We have now known for quite some time that there are

" homeotic genes " that specifically control the anatomical placement of

structures during embryonic development. *These* are the true origin

of the structure.

Thus, common descent would predict not that homologous structures

develop from homologous regions of the embryo, but that homologous

structures are placed by homologous homeotic genes, and that the

mechanism of placement involves homologous chemical signals.

Since the fossil record, for example, suggests that fins evolved into

limbs, we should expect homologous genes and signals to be responsible

for fin and limb development in fish and tetrapod embryos

respectively.

In fish fins and tetrapod limbs, the hoxd-11 gene and the Sonic

hedgehog gene (for anyone wondering, yes I'm pretty sure this is

inspired by the video game character) are expressed during the

development of these parts. The hoxd-11 gene product controls the

spatial organization along the axis of the limb, while the Sonic

hedgehog gene controls the other two dimensions of the spatial

organization.

In early embryonic development, the timing and spatial expression of

these genes are identical, and lead to homologous structures called

" limb buds. " In late development, however, something dramatic

changes. In the fish, the hoxd-11 expression essentially ceases,

except in small amounts in the hind part of the fin. In the mouse,

the hoxd-11 continues to express and shifts directions within the

forelimb towards the head, providing development of the hand.

(Freeman, Biological Science, 2005).

So, your challenge fails the test. The observations do not conflict

with evolutionary theory. What have you got for cytochrome c?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I've seen Kent Hovind speak on 2 occasions. You will enjoy the videos. He

also has videos of debates he's had with the best and brightest the

evolutionists have to offer. He has a hard time finding evolutionists to

debate him anymore as he consistently demolishes them. For those who insist

that evolution is fact, a look at one of the debates would certainly show

them just how flimsy a foundation evolution rests on.

>,

>have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Dr. Kent Hovind? He

>served as an educator for many years teaching Biology, Anatomy, Physical

>Science, Mathematics, Earth Science, and many other sciences. With my

> " ignorance " of evolution, I have commissioned his help. He is sending me a

>7 disc series on Creation and Evolution. Just from a sample cd that

>someone gave me yesterday at Church, I was absolutely impressed. He did

>hit on your statement about evolution and Hitler, and how it was his

>knowledge of evolution that caused him to want to " create the perfect

>race " . From all the conversations here concerning this matter, yours has

>made the most sense. Without having studied the series yet, on the demo

>disc he also talks about carbon dating and talks in details and proves

>errors in the science and biology books. One thing that stood out last

>night was the grand canyon. The science books teach that the Colorado

>River formed the grand canyon over millions of years, but he goes in and

>proves that there is no way it could have happened that way, that is was a

>flood that created it. I'm very excited about watching the cd's and if I

>have questions, I will address them to you, if that is ok.

>

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

>You have a double standard. When you quote from 1972, it is relevant.

>When I do, it is outdated. You are having trouble seeing how

>unreasonable it is to assert that decades of past observation by

>scientists cannot be invalidated by currant observations AND it be

>reasonable for people to believe in evolution throughout the past

>decades.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene-

Three things:

> > I¹d say that it¹s a mark of a rational person to spend one¹s time wisely.

> > From what I have gleaned from searching a bit online, this guy is a true

> > scumbag/crackpot/idiot, and it therefore

> wouldn¹t be rational for me to spend

> > time and effort trying to take him seriously.

First, you appear to be backquoting your own

responses, making it difficult to figure out what

you're saying yourself and what you're backquoting from other people's posts.

Second, you're backquoting people's entire

posts. You're hardly the only one doing this,

and I'm definitely not singling you out (more

messages on this matter are forthcoming) but it

makes it difficult and unpleasant to read the

list, so I'm officially asking you to please take care to trim your posts.

> Just like I don¹t take you

> > seriously, except as a sign of the

> evil/ignorance that is trying to take over

> > this country.

Third, ad hominem rhetoric like this is unacceptable.

-

[Guest guest]

> popping in to admit that I was completely wrong, and Hovind was

>not lying. Here is a textbook company admitting their own error which

>they did not fix until the late 1990s:

>

><http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html>http://www.millera\

ndlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

As I stated, the last I saw was mid 90's but I don't recall the publisher.

It may have been the same one you found here. I don't always agree with

your viewpoints, but many would have not posted something like this

and admit they were wrong. They would wait for someone else to prove it

first. You are truly a man of honor.

[Guest guest]

>> but many would have not posted something like this

and admit they were wrong. They would wait for someone else to prove it

first. You are truly a man of honor.<<

Indeed he is. And a good example to us all on how to comport ourselves with

integrity.

Suze

[Guest guest]

On 9/12/06, Long <longc@...> wrote:

> As I stated, the last I saw was mid 90's but I don't recall the publisher.

> It may have been the same one you found here. I don't always agree with

> your viewpoints, but many would have not posted something like this

> and admit they were wrong. They would wait for someone else to prove it

> first.

That would be pretty embarassing and unethical.

> You are truly a man of honor.

Thanks. :-)

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com