Of course there is a plan Bob. It is called Natural Selection and it is a non-random choosing of that which shows the greatest fitness for successful reproduction. Too bad you can't understand the basics. It really isn't that difficult. I'm sure you can get your grandchildren to explain it to you.
Hank On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Bob Martin wrote: > Welly welly welly well.... Hank certainly does know how to hurl the > rhetorical feces, indicating a simian Chimps-at-their-first-fire level of > emotional development consistent with his self-confessed views on the nature > and purpose of life. > > What a piece of work is the Fundamentalist Evolutionist! Hank's Confession > of Faith in the anti-religion of Orthodox Evolutionism ought to be nailed to > the door of the Rabbinate in Jerusalem. > > But enough of sarcasm and mockery disguised as humor. Hank's prosaic > statement brilliantly demonstrates the nihilism inherent in Orthodox > Evolutionist anti-theology. Further, it gives us Freudian slip insight into > the zeitgeist of the fanatical Evolutionist. > >> From Hank's comment, I've extracted nine statements that turn out to be a > neat summary of the basic tenents of Orthodox Evolutionism. I call it The > Seven Pillars of Evolutionism: > > 1. There is No Plan > 2. There is Natural Selection > 3. There is Mutation > 4. There is Fitness-Unfitness > 5. There is Adaptation > 6. There is Reproduction > 7. There is Death > > Supporting the Seven Pillars are the Two Inferences: > > 1. Everybody who says there's a Creator or Intelligent Design is > stupid. > 2. Evidence that Im wrong doesn't need to be examined. > > The Seven Pillars are dogmatic injunctions that rank right up there with any > Wahabi pre-jihad adhan. Together with the Inferences, they make a perfect > catechism for the Orthodox Evolutionist. > > I can see them (the Ortho Evos), boldly staring at their naked selves in the > wall-size mirror, firm in their anti-faith, repeating these statements over > and over, meanwhile dreaming only of iterally and figuratively chasing their > individual and collective monkey tails. > > Hank and Company.... if there is NO PLAN, then how can all the other > intricately planned things exist? > if there is NO Plan, then why do we have a sexual instinct? > > You're tripping down the same myopic path that Percival Lowell did when he > scientifically proved there is life on Mars, q.v. > http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/69/116/21354/1/frameset.html > > Or maybe you're just stuck in Flatland > http://www.eldritchpress.org/eaa/FL.HTM > > It's more correct to say you're living in Laputa > http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/ > > Be seeing you. > Bob > > > On 7/22/07, adar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Gosh, Bob - You know nothing about evolution, do you? >> Evolution does not imply a plan. Where did you get that idea? Natural >> selection is the basis of evolution and it is predicated on mutations for >> fitness to adapt to an environment and to reproduce. Nothing more. Nothing >> >> less. You have one purpose in life and one purpose only: to fuck and have >> little Bobs. Then die. Everything else is gingerbread and aesthetics. >> >> Hank >> >> >> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Bob Martin wrote: >> >>> Fundamentalist Evolutionists have a lot more faith and come to even more >>> ridiculous conclusion than the most fanatical Wahabist (who believes in >> the >>> literal truth of the Koran) or the hard-shell Christian (who believes >> that >>> the Torah was written in King Jame's English). >>> >>> Evolutionists and run-of-the-mill Creationists have something in common: >> a >>> comic-book notion of the Creator. >>> >>> Imagine that you find a pocket watch one day, laying in the street near >> your >>> house. You'd really laugh if I insisted that this watch wasn't created, >> but >>> that it self-organized after billions of years. Nothing (and >>> nobody) created the watch, it just came into existence. And pocket >> watches >>> led to shelf clocks, and that led to Big Ben. Big Ben evolved from a >> pocket >>> watch. Pretty primitive and stupid thinking, right? But it's no more >>> primitive and stupid than saying that we "jes grew" like Topsy. >>> >>> Yes, it's true that the mechanism called "evolution" is at work in the >>> universe. But evolution implies a plan, a purpose, a goal towards which >>> this process is working. And it implies a Creator. >>> >>> Materialistic, mechanistic notions of the universe are useful only up to >> a >>> point. Eventually an honest person must admit that they really don't >> know >>> how all of this got started. Equally important, how it all keeps going, >> and >>> going, and going. God is the original Energizer Bunny. >>> >>> I think that Stan Tenen's research and documentation goes a long way >> towards >>> resolving the apparent dilemma http://www.meru.org/ and hope that those >> of >>> you die-hard Evolutionists with big brains will give his hypotheses a >>> careful review. >>> >>> Here's another useful resourse for those interested in thinking and not >>> merely adhereing to Fundamentalist Evolutionist dogma... >>> http://www.torahscience.org/newsletter7.html >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/07, Bill Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <billnerie%40verizon.net>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2007, at 5:05 AM, Kamran wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SC; Well, you have it exactly backwards. Evolution has been observed >>>>> and >>>>> documented on the macro and micro scale. The first observed instance >> of >>>>> speciation was around 1907. New species emerge periodically and get >>>>> documented. Evolution happens. There's just no way out of it. If >>>>> knowledge >>>>> of our ancestry destroys our morality then we aren't worth much as a >>>>> species. >>>>> >>>>> Here is a video of Richard Dawkins talking about genes. In the course >>>>> of the >>>>> talk he touches on a lot of the evidence for evolution. He, of course, >>>>> as to >>>>> take a few digs at religion, but for the >>>>> most part he just talks about evolution and genes. >>>>> >>>>> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8712792765758299597>http:// >>>>> video.go >>>>> ogle.com/videoplay?docid=8712792765758299597 >>>>> >>>>> Kamran: If it is such a common phenomenon, why don't you give an >>>>> example of >>>>> observed speciation and evolution at work? I challenge you to give ONE >>>>> example! >>>> >>>> Here Kamran, blow this off as I'm sure you will... >>>> .http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ >>>> >>>> BB: >>>> SC, Kamran would probably demand of a geologist to see a mountain range >>>> forming before his eyes. SC you probably know more about evolutionary >>>> theory than I, but I know enough, as you, to realize that everything in >>>> comparative anatomy, genetics, geology, evolutionary biology, biology >>>> in general, taxonomy, the freakin' fossils for chrisake, all point to >>>> evolutionary theory as the only explanatory tool. All that would have >>>> to happen is chicken fossils found in the cambrian strata and >>>> evolutionary theory is down the toilet. Trying to argue with Kamran >>>> or any other I.D.er <http://i.d.er/> / Creationist is pointless and, do >>>> what you will, >>>> but arguing with them gives I.D. a dignity it doesn't deserve. It's >>>> like arguing with those that think the Creator of the Universe wants a >>>> particular ethnic group to live in a particular patch of desert in the >>>> middle east. There is nothing to argue about. Evolution is a >>>> theory...Evolution is a fact. It would neither prove or help to >>>> discount disprove I.D., but why is it that ONLY theists are I.D. >>>> proponents. Has anyone ever met or even heard of an non-theist giving >>>> I.D. any consideration at all. I have met many Christians who are >>>> happy to accept Darwinian theory -and know a lot about it too - because >>>> their concept of God would not permit them to constrain him to creating >>>> the universe the way they think he should have done. Rather they accept >>>> what their intelligence tells them, but attribute it to God and his >>>> eternal and timeless purpose. Not so these ID folk, who are hell bent >>>> on constraining their god to operate acccording to their own rules. >>>> >>>> You'll find debating Kamran about as productive as talking to lawn >>>> furniture. The point would be lost on him / her that Giraffes are >>>> reasonably recent arrivals in the animal kingdom, while Dinosaurs died >>>> out 60 million years ago, and ruled the animal kingdom for 100 million >>>> years prior to that, when nothing remotely like a giraffe existed. His >>>> response might be to suggest that there is "evidence" (which naturally >>>> would not be given) that everything was created at the same time. >>>> >>>> Without laboring the point, there were clearly epochs when certain >>>> genera existed, and before which they did not exist. Given the >>>> long-term instability of the earth's crust, with shifting plates and >>>> volcanic disturbances, floods, erosion and other catastrophes, it would >>>> be very strange if the fossil record were perfect in the case of any >>>> genus, and of course it is not, but it takes a perverted kind of logic >>>> to presume that this implies that what record there is can be >>>> disregarded. But I guess it can because there's not a scintilla of >>>> physical evidence for evolution. >>>> >>>> The point is that tens of millions of known species, living and >>>> extinct, all have their places in a timeline stretching back billions >>>> of years. In principle it is beyond question that one end of that >>>> timeline shows only the most simple life forms, and that life became >>>> increasingly complex thereafter. But Kamran and his wacky pals might >>>> concede Darwinian evolution for variation within a species. So if a >>>> kangaroo evolves until it looks like a Wallaby, while still not being a >>>> wallaby, some divine agency needs to step in at that point and make a >>>> fine-tuning adjustment, a tiny tweak to the chromosomes of one example >>>> of the changed form of the kangaroo, so that henceforward it must be a >>>> wallaby. Thereafter, sex between roo and wallaby will either be sterile >>>> or will produce a sterile (hybrid) offspring, due to the mismatch of >>>> the chromosomes. >>>> >>>> The question the IDers will evade is: Are we to understand therefore >>>> that the intelligent designer (aka Big Bearded Guy in the Sky) >>>> intervened at the critical moment on several billion occasions down the >>>> ages to create each and every distinct species in a long sequence of >>>> distinct creations? Everyone can see that such a scenario is evolution >>>> of species in fancy dress, with God playing a walk-on role at the point >>>> of separation of a species. No reason can be given for the need for >>>> such an occasional helping hand, as the distinction between a variety >>>> and a species now becomes just a point somewhere on a line of a >>>> continuous evolutionary process, ie. Darwin's theory of origin of >>>> species exactly, and every creationist's (Kamran's) nightmare. >>>> >>>> Kamran writes....There is abundant evidence for a Designer or Maker of >>>> this world... >>>> >>>> BB: Oh please, perhaps just a little. >>>> >>>> Kamran continues.... " But you cannot use the man-monkey look alike >>>> observation to >>>>> draw a conclusion for evolution. At the pre-biotic to life stage you >>>>> have >>>>> to show chemical pathways that result in the transformation of dead >>>>> matter >>>>> to life." >>>> >>>> BB: Somebody is mixing their apples and oranges here. Evolution and >>>> abiogenesis are not the same thing. The exact scenario and chemical >>>> pathways are not known in every detail....Conclusion: A deity done did >>>> it. >>>> >>>> "People sometimes try to score debating points by saying, "Evolution is >>>> only a theory." That is correct, but it's important to understand what >>>> that means. It is also only a theory that the world goes round the Sun >>>> -- it's just a theory for which there is an immense amount of evidence. >>>> There are many scientific theories that are in doubt. Even within >>>> evolution, there is some room for controversy. But that we are cousins >>>> of apes and jackals and starfish, let's say, that is a fact in the >>>> ordinary sense of the word." >>>> -- Richard Dawkins, "Nick Pollard interviews Richard Dawkins" (Damars: >>>> 1999) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > >
