Re: [CTRL] Fw: Re: [SC] Re: Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 99-08-20 02:03:34 EDT, Keachie writes: These critters have much more in common in their DNA than do say any of them and horses. You're walking on the beach. You see something glittering in the sand. You dig carefully and discover a shiny, solid gold pocket watch. You snap open the lid to reveal a beautifully crafted face, with gold hands ticking across black roman numeral lettering. What can you assume about the watch? Do you think that the sand and other minerals swirled together over millions of years, and finally, com- pletely by chance, "evolved" into a watch? Or do you assume that someone crafted the watch from metals and glass, and "created" it according to an intelligent design? Weighing the probabilities in your mind, you come to the logical conclusion that an intelligent being crafted it, organizing it from the elements. This argument has been dealt with endlessly in the past. 1) Lifeforms ain't watches. 2) We can easily observe the presence of watchmakers; creators aren't so easily discerned, only inferred, and can't be tested for. 3) Watches have just the necessary mechanical parts to perform their intended function, plus possibly a few decorative flourishes. Homo Sapiens and other lifeforms have all sorts of non- and dys-functional features that make sense in an evolutionary context since they don't necessarily kill-off a creature before it reproduces, but that in a creationist context suggest total incompetence on a creator's part. 4) Evolution can be observed in any microbiology lab. Researchers have shown that the chemical and organizational bases of life can be replicated in the lab - 'creators' aren't NEEDED to explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theories WORK as explanations of observed phenomena - creationism doesn't. 5) You'll believe whatever you want to believe. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Fw: Re: [SC] Re: Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Eagle 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just my input: Common DNA ancestory isn't even an argument. All mammals have common DNA, (and so what?). Gee, why d'ya think THAT is? Possible explanations: 1) It's unknowable. 2) Deities, or alien entities masquarading as deities, created all life on earth from a common model, but with just enough variation so that humans would be tricked into thinking that humans and other animals actually shared a common ancestry, when actually we're all constructs. 3) Humans and all other lifeforms known actually DID evolve from common ancestors. Mammals have similar DNA because we're all related. The degree of DNA similarity reliably indicates the span of relatedness. Guess what? Number three (3) works. If you have a more comprehensive, more parsimonious explanation, please whip it out. EVOLUTION is the lie of millennial and historical proportions. Evolution can be observed (cf. influenza). You are writing nonsense. Regrets. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Fw: Re: [SC] Re: Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- - Forwarded Message - From: James Thomas Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 21:44:48 -0700 Subject: Re: [SC] Re: Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution delurk In a message dated 99-08-13 17:15:07 EDT, you write: Apes - monkeys, same thing. Why is it that the people who support this theory can never explain why there are still "apes" as well as humans? You obviously never talked to me. The evolution of a new species does not mean that the basic stock either goes existence, or that there must only be one descendent branch. Consider that wolves, dogs and foxes descend from a common ancestor, but the rise of one to fill an ecological niche doesn't mean that the others must go extinct. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. The rise of humans does not mean that apes must have been replaced. You could extend this nonsense argument to ask why there are still fish when amphibians exist, or why are there still amphibians when there are reptiles, or why there are still reptiles when there are mammals, or why there are still dinosaurs when there are birds, uh, strike that last one :-). That is my point, evolution is only a theory, not fact, same as creationism, so why not present both theories and let the student use his/her mind and decide for themselves rather than be brainwashed by lack of "scientific" evidence. Calling a theory "scientific evidence" is disinformation ... it is not viable, it is not "observed evidence." How can one observe evolution? Gravity is "just a theory". If you believe that there is no evidence for evolution, you have either never seriously look for evidence, or are being willfully ignorant. Evolution was made up as a theory because the scientists had no explaination as to how everything came into existence, they just pulled it out of their ass. You seem to have a skewed idea of what a "theory" is. A theory is not shorthand for just any random idea. Evolution was not just "pulled out of scientist's asses." Evolution has a lot of data behind it. It comes in all forms and ranges from fossils to astrophysics to geology to microbiology. We can even look at agriculture to see a form of human-directed evolution of food crops and animal breeding. The government gives creedence to pedofiles. NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) has been given a charter by the government. Adults taking advantage of children in a sexual way is perversion. These children have rights, the right to not be molested by adults. Please post a copy of this alleged "government charter" for NAMBLA. At least post information on what governmental agency issued this charter. As for what this has to do with evolution vs. creation, I can't see. It seems to me just a typical "muddy the water" nonsense argument by someone who just doesn't have any facts on their side of the argument. file://-=- James_Thomas_Green(*); /delurk DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Fw: Re: [SC] Re: Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 99-08-15 10:47:40 EDT, James writes: You obviously never talked to me. Correct. The evolution of a new species does not mean that the basic stock either goes existence, or that there must only be one descendent branch. Consider that wolves, dogs and foxes descend from a common ancestor, but the rise of one to fill an ecological niche doesn't mean that the others must go extinct. Only believers in the scientific religion of evolution would believe that dogs, foxes and wolves come from the same ancestor. Dogs wolves maybe, they are nearly the same, I don't know about foxes. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. The rise of humans does not mean that apes must have been replaced. Again, this is the dogma of the evolutionist. There is no way to prove that humans and apes are from a common ancestor. You could extend this nonsense argument to ask why there are still fish when amphibians exist, or why are there still amphibians when there are reptiles, or why there are still reptiles when there are mammals, or why there are still dinosaurs when there are birds, uh, strike that last one :-). I don't believe that amphibians came from fish, so I would not make that analogy. Gravity is "just a theory". You can observe gravity. If you believe that there is no evidence for evolution, you have either never seriously look for evidence, or are being willfully ignorant. Your opinion You seem to have a skewed idea of what a "theory" is. A theory is not shorthand for just any random idea. A theory is called a theory because it cannot be proven. Evolution was not just "pulled out of scientist's asses." Evolution has a lot of data behind it. It comes in all forms and ranges from fossils to astrophysics to geology to microbiology. We can even look at agriculture to see a form of human-directed evolution of food crops and animal breeding. Did you take probability and statistics in college? If you did you know that data can be manipulated/skewed to favor one's analysis (theory). Can scientists trace the evolution of the first microbe to man with fossils ... I haven't seen this. Please post a copy of this alleged "government charter" for NAMBLA. At least post information on what governmental agency issued this charter. I trashed all the information I had on this organization, however you can look them up on the web at http://www.nambla.org One of the articles I read stated that the IRS recognises this organization as a non-profit entity. That's close enough to government recognition to me. As for what this has to do with evolution vs. creation, I can't see. It seems to me just a typical "muddy the water" nonsense argument by someone who just doesn't have any facts on their side of the argument. Scientists think only they are correct and therefore only their opinion (theories) matter. I don't see it that way. I see science as being corrupt. Example: The Food Drug Administration (FDA) is run by scientists (controlled by govt.) and they put Nutra Sweet (aspartame) on the market as a sweetener and raided a Texas company (health food store?) that sold srevia and even made them burn their books on using stevia as a substitute for sugar or aspartame. Aspartame is a chemical substance that many doctors and scientists also have evidence that it is harmful to humans. Stevia is a natural plant that is about 1000 times sweeter than sugar with nearly no calories, it also doesn't turn into formaldehyde when exposed to high room temperatures. This is one reason why I don't trust scientists. There are other reasons, but not as blatant as this one. I also do not believe preachers because they seem to want only money and do not adhere to the Bible teachings they purport to teach. Again, with the issuing of licenses, government has perverted religion, much as it has done with science. Regards, Bob Stokes DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory
Re: [CTRL] Fw: Re: [SC] Re: Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- Just my input: Common DNA ancestory isn't even an argument. All mammals have common DNA, (and so what?). From one who has much experience in this field of study, and a college education based on the subject matter... EVOLUTION is the lie of millennial and historical proportions. If it were true, humans would be evolving on galactical proportions, considering their time of appearance on the earth... yet, man has remained basically unchanged for the past 20,000+ years, as compared with the entire animal kingdom and what some scientists would lay claim to what has commonly become known as evolution. All things change; that's the nature of the beast. Some things change more than others, and truly, some do utilize their environment for change to adapt, but this is not the entire basis for the evolution theory. IF this DNA were the so-called 'common' thread, why is it that apes and man have not converged? That is because there is a definite barrier in place to prevent such an action. A barrier that will never be crossed. Consider the fact that in the natural order of species, most all species, even though their DNA is similar enough without a barrier, that they prefer their own kind... i.e. "kind after kind" in a natural process, and do not 'choose' to cross over into breeding outside their own kind. It is only in the minds of men with big pens and big armchairs, that write out ludicrous suppositions on paper that sound so good. And theoretically, some of it bears truth... but is not consistent to carry through all in this area of evolution. Scientists cannot explain the lack of evolution in animals such as the shark for example. There is no reason why it should not have become even more efficient than it already is. And on the same lines, the lungfish neither has changed, nor can any evidence be produced why it hasn't. What happened here? A fluke of nature? Hardly. When man gets his own ego and logic far enough out of the way and owns up enough to understand that he cannot comprehend the entire universe, or it's building blocks to the umpteenth power... and realize that there is truly a greater, ordered power behind all, then and only then will he come to grips with the hows and whys he is and how he became to this day to be the ruling species of the earth. But, that change doesn't seem to be anytime soon on the horizon. So the cop-out in my opinion, is that the fear that what man believes and what is truth may be totally different things, and man's ego simply won't let him believe that he might be wrong, particularly in this arena of evolution. Because this is just one of those avenues that seems to sooth certain people's logic as the perfect solution. Evolution is merely a theory. Another one of those suppositional things that cannot be proved or disproved, but is rather a matter of opinion, and what one chooses to believe as their own reality. Personally, I choose to, and I'll stick to the Creation facts, and still be willing to give anyone space who chooses to believe otherwise. eagle 1 - Original Message - From: Ric Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [CTRL] Fw: Re: [SC] Re: Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution -Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 99-08-15 10:47:40 EDT, James writes: The evolution of a new species does not mean that the basic stock either goes existence, or that there must only be one descendent branch. Consider that wolves, dogs and foxes descend from a common ancestor, but the rise of one to fill an ecological niche doesn't mean that the others must go extinct. Only believers in the scientific religion of evolution would believe that dogs, foxes and wolves come from the same ancestor. Dogs wolves maybe, they are nearly the same, I don't know about foxes. Dogs, wolves and foxes can all interbreed. Their DNA is nearly identical. Their common ancestry is obvious. Humans and other great apes (bonobos, chimps, gorillas, orangutans) all share similar DNA, to within 95-98%. Our common ancestry is undeniable. All known primates share similar behavior patterns too, showing the similarity of our DNA reflected in our mental structures. You may believe what you wish, but evoluionary biology is supported by a vast amount of data - it's the best, most usable model we have thus far. If you have a better explanation, one that's testable and more inclusive and parsimonious, please whip it out. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. The rise of humans does not mean that apes must have been replaced. Again, this is the dogma of the evolutionist. There is no way to prove that humans and apes are from a common ancestor. nok nok Is this thing on? Hey, look at the common DNA, the behavioral and
