A vain attempt to contradict the mass of scientific evidence for evolution?

Evolution destroys the belief that the creation myth in Genesis is true
and reduces any role for a god.

However, the attempts to promulgate the idea of an intelligent creator
are so crass that they destroy the credibility

'A vain attempt to contradict the mass of scientific evidence for
evolution? 
Evolution destroys the belief that the creation myth in Genesis is true
and reduces any role for a god. 
However, the attempts to promulgate the idea of an intelligent creator
are so crass that they destroy the credibility  '

REPLY:

1.  There is only a mass of psuedo scientific evidence for macro
evolution. There is alot for micro evolution, within a kind,  however.

2. Evolution is a scapegoat (temporary) so one doesnt have to relinquish
his chosen lifestyle based on personal unlimited freedom.

3. Belief in a personal infinite Creator for a personal finite Universe
makes good rational sense and is supported by real Science and even
atheist DNA CoDiscoverer Dr. Crick who calculates 10 to the 40,000 th
power probability of a brain or eye naturally evolving . You really
should have greater faith in atheist Scientists ;  I certainly do !

X-No-Archive: yes
"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:31303030313034394822C0E283@zetnet.co.uk...
>A vain attempt to contradict the mass of scientific evidence for evolution?
>
> Evolution destroys the belief that the creation myth in Genesis is true
> and reduces any role for a god.
>
> However, the attempts to promulgate the idea of an intelligent creator
> are so crass that they destroy the credibility

Sorry to drone on but....
over in ukrc, this type of extreme counterbalance doesn't take place (..save 
for one, or perhaps two zealots).
It may, or may not, be representative of christian folk, I don't know,  but 
many in that place do not seem to dispute evolution. They do, however, 
possess belief in a 'personal god' together with the spirituality and 
pyschological ramifications that brings.   Biblical discussions are far more 
esoteric with few insisting that the word is inerrant.  This poses further 
problems of course, since obvious errors (..phwewh, that's difficult in 
itself to get some to acknowledge) are pushed around a platform of analogy, 
mis-translation, interpretation (often juxtaposed against other biblical 
words) and at times, spiritual inspiration of the 'writer'.
Seldon, if ever, is the nonsensical retorts or mind numbing regurgitations 
of fanatical, religious devouts such as dilv.
I suppose we ought to start with the extremes of reliosity, the *fundies* 
such as dilv,  but my unbending instinct is that 'they' are unlikely, indeed 
unable, to re-adjust there almost pyschotic desperations into rational 
thought or reasoned response.
It does seem odd that, although a sweeping generalisation, there appears to 
be a direct correlation between fundamental, evangelical, christian devouts 
and intellectual capability.  I've yet to encounter, in any number at least, 
ANY fundamentalists that can debate their case with any meaningful coherence 
that concurs with modern and scientific understanding and  knowledge - 
facts, if you wish.
Now, there may be a number of possibilites for this:  Either the world of 
christian fundmentalism attracts and appeals to a certain type of person 
with a certain level of capability of intellectuality and reasoned thought 
or, whatever the initial attraction, having become conditioned and 
*doctored*  into the belief system, any intellectual consideration has to be 
'unlearned' to stay in the extreme belief system.  It could be part of both.
Watching the same mindless postings (..for that is excatly what they are - 
over and over the same blunt, unrefined and dinosaurish regurgitated 
dribble) of dilv just places him completely stuck where he is.  It's as if 
he has discovered the 'good news' in its entirety, it is carved in stone 
eons deep, therefore unquestionable, and he has self programmed to say and 
do exactly the same thing over and over in his own Ground Hog day 
life.......
It would be amusing if it were not so abject..


Mark

On May 8, 8:25 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message
>
> news:31303030313034394822C0E283@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> >A vain attempt to contradict the mass of scientific evidence for evolution?
>
> > Evolution destroys the belief that the creation myth in Genesis is true
> > and reduces any role for a god.
>
> > However, the attempts to promulgate the idea of an intelligent creator
> > are so crass that they destroy the credibility
>
> Sorry to drone on but....
> over in ukrc, this type of extreme counterbalance doesn't take place (..save
> for one, or perhaps two zealots).
> It may, or may not, be representative of christian folk, I don't know,  but
> many in that place do not seem to dispute evolution. They do, however,
> possess belief in a 'personal god' together with the spirituality and
> pyschological ramifications that brings.   Biblical discussions are far more
> esoteric with few insisting that the word is inerrant.  This poses further
> problems of course, since obvious errors (..phwewh, that's difficult in
> itself to get some to acknowledge) are pushed around a platform of analogy> mis-translation, interpretation (often juxtaposed against other biblical
> words) and at times, spiritual inspiration of the 'writer'.
> Seldon, if ever, is the nonsensical retorts or mind numbing regurgitations> of fanatical, religious devouts such as dilv.
> I suppose we ought to start with the extremes of reliosity, the *fundies*
> such as dilv,  but my unbending instinct is that 'they' are unlikely, indeed
> unable, to re-adjust there almost pyschotic desperations into rational
> thought or reasoned response.
> It does seem odd that, although a sweeping generalisation, there appears to
> be a direct correlation between fundamental, evangelical, christian devouts
> and intellectual capability.  I've yet to encounter, in any number at least,
> ANY fundamentalists that can debate their case with any meaningful coherence
> that concurs with modern and scientific understanding and  knowledge -
> facts, if you wish.
> Now, there may be a number of possibilites for this:  Either the world of
> christian fundmentalism attracts and appeals to a certain type of person
> with a certain level of capability of intellectuality and reasoned thought> or, whatever the initial attraction, having become conditioned and
> *doctored*  into the belief system, any intellectual consideration has to be
> 'unlearned' to stay in the extreme belief system.  It could be part of both.
> Watching the same mindless postings (..for that is excatly what they are -> over and over the same blunt, unrefined and dinosaurish regurgitatede
> dhe ribble) of dilv just places him completely stuck where he is.  It's as if
> he has discovered the 'good news' in its entirety, it is carved in stone
> eons deep, therefore unquestionable, and he has self programmed to say and> do exactly the same thing over and over in his own Ground Hog day
> life.......
> It would be amusing if it were not so abject..
>
> Mark

REPLY: The main problem for England, is that they have come to revere
a 19th century scientist who was born there and who offered the
populus a smokescreen excuse for not admitting there has to be a
personal Creator so they can have maximum entitlement to choose
whatever lifestyle pleases them. Darwinnian Macro Evolution has been
thoroughly refuted and proven to be utterly impossible and it starts
with life coming into existence from non life --- spontaneous
generation was disproven in the last century  but it MUST be true for
Darwinnian Evolution to be true. So, the charade continues for the
sake of personal freedom to live as one likes. Its atheism personally
convenient (?)

On May 8, 6:25 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message
>
> news:31303030313034394822C0E283@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> >A vain attempt to contradict the mass of scientific evidence for evolution?
>
> > Evolution destroys the belief that the creation myth in Genesis is true
> > and reduces any role for a god.
>
> > However, the attempts to promulgate the idea of an intelligent creator
> > are so crass that they destroy the credibility
>
> Sorry to drone on but....
> over in ukrc, this type of extreme counterbalance doesn't take place (..save
> for one, or perhaps two zealots).
> It may, or may not, be representative of christian folk, I don't know,  but
> many in that place do not seem to dispute evolution. They do, however,
> possess belief in a 'personal god' together with the spirituality and
> pyschological ramifications that brings.   Biblical discussions are far more
> esoteric with few insisting that the word is inerrant.  This poses further
> problems of course, since obvious errors (..phwewh, that's difficult in
> itself to get some to acknowledge) are pushed around a platform of analogy> mis-translation, interpretation (often juxtaposed against other biblical
> words) and at times, spiritual inspiration of the 'writer'.
> Seldon, if ever, is the nonsensical retorts or mind numbing regurgitations> of fanatical, religious devouts such as dilv.
> I suppose we ought to start with the extremes of reliosity, the *fundies*
> such as dilv,  but my unbending instinct is that 'they' are unlikely, indeed
> unable, to re-adjust there almost pyschotic desperations into rational
> thought or reasoned response.
> It does seem odd that, although a sweeping generalisation, there appears to
> be a direct correlation between fundamental, evangelical, christian devouts
> and intellectual capability.  I've yet to encounter, in any number at least,
> ANY fundamentalists that can debate their case with any meaningful coherence
> that concurs with modern and scientific understanding and  knowledge -
> facts, if you wish.
> Now, there may be a number of possibilites for this:

Here's one possibility (actually it's more of a certainty) you should
add..DILV is a terminal dumb ass

>Either the world of
christian fundmentalism attracts and appeals to a certain type of
person
with a certain level of capability of intellectuality and reasoned
thought
or, whatever the initial attraction, having become conditioned and
*doctored*  into the belief system, any intellectual consideration has
to be
'unlearned' to stay in the extreme belief system.  It could be part of
both.
Watching the same mindless postings (..for that is excatly what they
are -
over and over the same blunt, unrefined and dinosaurish regurgitated
dribble) of dilv just places him completely stuck where he is.  It's
as if
he has discovered the 'good news' in its entirety, it is carved in
stone
eons deep, therefore unquestionable, and he has self programmed to say
and
do exactly the same thing over and over in his own Ground Hog day
life.......
It would be amusing if it were not so abject..
 Mark

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote
>A vain attempt to contradict the mass of scientific evidence for evolution?
>
> Evolution destroys the belief that the creation myth in Genesis is true
> and reduces any role for a god.
>
> However, the attempts to promulgate the idea of an intelligent creator
> are so crass that they destroy the credibility

Creationism is clutching at straws. It refutes science because science 
disagrees with the Bible. People deal with this in different ways. Some 
accept the old Biblical tales are but myths. Some try and interpret the 
Biblical texts in different ways to try and make it fit the science. (Days 
may not means 'days' etc.)  and then there are those that believe every word 
of the Bible has to be true so that the science has to be wrong. The last 
group is a minority. Some of this minority choose to get very vocal in 
trying to protect their view because their faith hinges on scripture. If 
scripture is wrong then they are wrong and they can't handle that. They 
don't see their credibility destroyed as they see their credibility as 
coming from belief in scripture and as long as they believe, they have what 
they want.

There is more evidence for evolution than any other bit of science. It does 
not start with the origin of life.    Evolution explains the origin of 
species that we see around us. Creationists repeatedly get this wrong and 
claim that evolution must explain the origin of life - but it need not. 
Darwin's book was not called 'On the Origin of Life .....'

Steve M

David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
  
[snip]

I've just conducted some searches of the Amazon book section...

"creationism" 509 results
"ufo"               2790 results
"alien"           6389 results
"Loch Ness" 361 results
"Yeti"             204 results
"crystal healing"  226 results

So, if you can develop a theory about how, say, aliens created Loch
Ness by mining for healing crystals ....

The "Fake Moon landing" was tricky to search for, but trawling
through a "moon landing" search, I found 5 books.
Also, Amazon search results seem to have a lot of duplicate
entries.

 
-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

X-No-Archive: yes



A dilv response.....

***REPLY: The main problem for England, is that they have come to revere
a 19th century scientist who was born there and who offered the
populus a smokescreen excuse for not admitting there has to be a
personal Creator so they can have maximum entitlement to choose
whatever lifestyle pleases them. Darwinnian Macro Evolution has been
thoroughly refuted and proven to be utterly impossible and it starts
with life coming into existence from non life --- spontaneous
generation was disproven in the last century  but it MUST be true for
Darwinnian Evolution to be true. So, the charade continues for the
sake of personal freedom to live as one likes. Its atheism personally
convenient (?)***

So there we have it.
Evolution has been .."thoroughtly refuted" and "proven to be utterly 
impossible"......!!
Evolution, in his assessment ..."starts with life coming into existence" 
.......!!

Are there others who support this presumption..?
This really is the 'Kings new clothes'.
When is this mindless irrelevance going to stop......I mean, opinion and 
faith is one thing but redefining something, in the face of overwhelming 
contrary evidence - note, evidence and not speculation - that evolution has 
and is taking place,  together with the attempt to include first life 
(biogenesis) into the process of evolution is pitiful.  It is wrong, it is 
disengenuous and it is mindless.
It reminds me of a Monty Python sketch where the two members start an 
argument along the lines of....yes it is, no it's not.  Yes it is, no it's 
not. Yes it is, no it's not ....ad infinitum.
If one states that biogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution...the 
mindless response is... yes it is..!!!
Further, when one points to the myriad of evolutionary evidence, starting 
with the enormity of fossil record and latterly of genetic appraisal, it is 
ridiculously inept to suggest it (evolution) has been "refuted" or "utterly 
impossible"
This is bordering on a pyschotic illness that cannot distinguish fact from 
fiction....this man needs help.  I mean pyschiatric help.  This is beyond 
personal faith or belief and  into a pyschosis,  frankly.


Mark