Complete proof against evolution

On Mar 14, 10:33*am, "Chris.Bee" wrote:

You poor thing,you are like those commie guys back 50 years ago who
imagined the greater and anonymous communal good against what you see
is indoctrination of the Churches.There is a big difference between
those Christians who practice part of their faith in a denominational
setting and procedures as I do and the Chrsitian authorities which
are more or less useless at present.That the Church authorities are
about to concede to an almost bankrupt empirical cult is just about
right but this leads to the sterile and anonymous commie tendencies
which have no merit system save that they accept only what is
purposeful for the ideology,in this case,the 'scientific method'.

For a people who promote only an interest in science,it looks like you
never stop talking about God,religion and what have you.The good thing
about this is that a lot of effort is now going into finding life
elsewhere or making the Earth and creation less special in order to
make yourselves 'special'.You know what happens when you get your
wish,you do become 'special' but not in the way you think.

You are just another empirical drone,an unfortunate consequence of a
prevailing opinion that is neither scientific or religious.I operate
in a different religious and scientific atmosphere than most here,not
the phony one-size-fits-all science/religion setup but in the great
balances where intuitive intelligence lights up reason which in turn
enhances intuitive intelligence.Without subscribing tooth and nail to
Blake,he does ,more or less,say the same thing -



"The Giants who formed this world into its sensual existence and now
seem to live in it in chains, are in truth the causes of its life &
the sources of all activity, but the chains are the cunning of weak
and tame minds which have power to resist energy, according to the
proverb, the weak in courage is strong in cunning.Thus one portion of
being is the Prolific, the other the Devouring: to the devourer it
seems as if the producer was in his chains, but it is not so, he only
takes portions of existence and fancies that the whole.But the
Prolific would cease to be Prolific unless the Devourer, as a sea,
recieved the excess of his delights.Some will say: 'Is not God alone
the Prolific?' I answer: 'God only Acts & Is, in existing beings or
Men.'These two classes of men are always upon earth, & they should be
enemies; whoever tries to reconcile them seeks to destroy
existence.Religion is an endeavour to reconcile the two.Note: Jesus
Christ did not wish to unite but to seperate them, as in the Parable
of sheep and goats! & he says I came not to send Peace but a
Sword.Messiah or Satan or Tempter was formerly thought to be one of
the Antediluvians who are our Energies."

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/blake_ma.html





Religion only exists through the (deranged) thoughts and words of men.
Remove these men from history and their fantasies will no longer
exists and will never (ever) be invented.

Religion exists in its own space and time. Place it out of its
allotted time and/or space and that religion no longer exists. Or has
yet to be invented by man.

That the religion has yet to exist is ample proof that man is the
inventor and not some god or gods. A god would have the patience and
power over human minds to last forever in a simple, original form. Man
may try to embroider the truth but "god" would correct their nonsense
at every new iteration. Change one iota of the teachings of the human
"prophet" claiming insight and that religion no longer exists. That
religion is now officially dead. Another religion has been invented to
replace it. And another and another until time grows as old and slow
as the gods themselves.

One generation where the offspring are not brainwashed by their
parents is all it takes for a religion to cease to exist, forever. It
cannot be reinvented by the brightest minds on the planet struggling
for millennia. *Simultaneously burning all the books is all that is
required to end all religions. Until the next is invented by man.

Science can be reinvented endlessly and will always provide the same
results. Most of science could even be reinvented in full by a
surviving AI construction with sufficient sensors if man ceased to
exist overnight. However "clever" an AI construction could not
reinvent Islam or Christianity. Nor the Roman, Greek, Druid's or
Aztec's gods.

Religion can never be reinvented. It is an artifice of small,
arrogant, human minds telling fantasies and lies for personal gain.
Attention seeking is a lowest common denominator. Seeking power
without muscle backup is another. Circumventing democracy is popular.

Religions are the last bastion of dictatorship over democratic
countries. Nobody gets to vote for the priests who wield such corrupt
power over others. Few may opt out of taxpayer's support for the
favourite religion of the day. Few may opt out of the official
religion of any particular country. Many religions bully others into
submission even when the aggressors form a small minority of the
population.. There is ample evidence throughout history, until the
present day, that religious power is totally corrupting. They may deny
it but those who practice religion do so corruptly for personal power,
greed, political control or the avoidance of prosecution for crimes
against humanity. Devoutly religious countries are usually poverty
stricken with a clique of ultra-rich men wielding religious power
corruptly. Religion = inequality.

As a Christian myself, I find your comments offensive. Not just this single
post, but over a whole series of posts. You seem to want to attack
religion, God, and especially Christianity. What's your beef? Apparently,
something from the past has triggered your fury. While I might be able to
understand it, IF you shared the source of your troubles (molestation, my
wee-wee bigger than yours, etc etc), I am growing intolerant of your
constant bitching.

If you indeed have problems with the aforementioned, I suggest you seek out
the appropriate group instead of trying to **** off people here. Lots of
attacking and flames go on in such groups and I encourage you to take your
**** there.

Ever heard of filters? It amazes me so often the people who claim they use
them to filter out ng garbage, but then suddenly attack others as if they
had no filter. I don't know if you are one of those, nor do I care, but if
you are going to get so wound up over essentially nothing I suggest you
start using them instead of moaning about your bs to everyone here.

Now that we've cleared the path, I am going to share a little something that
I hope you and others take serious note of: I have a Masters +60 in Physics
(doctor equivalency) and I DO believe in God. There are those who claim
lack of trust in such individuals, but I work along people all of the time
in scientific endeavors and none of my belief affects my use of the
scientific method. In fact, much of what we experiment with only helps to
reinforce external influence from an outside force. Of course, you don't
believe this, but when was the last time you performed high level physical
science in a very expensive laboratory setting? I'll tell you something
else, athiesm in my workplace, where I have been 15+ years, is about 10% and
the rest are believers. We are not kooks, irrational, closed minded, just
common ordinary folks with high level educations. The majority of us chose
not to let education interfere with our belief system, and we'll meet/
exceed our lab work with anyone else on any day.

Oh, one other thing before I cut the cord. Do you and others realize that
there is a substantial amount of homeschooling occurring in the US and the
number is continuing to increase by leaps and bounds? This may not be
significant, but this is: one of the top selling books is called "Advanced
Physics In Creation". Interesting, isn't it?

A_Believer


"Chris.Bee" wrote in message
...
Those who have the astonishing arrogance to place themselves within
the radius of perception of anything capable of instigating a universe
know less about time and space than a squashed dung beetle on a desert
road.

Religion only exists through the (deranged) thoughts and words of men.
Remove these men from history and their fantasies will no longer
exists and will never (ever) be invented.

Religion exists in its own space and time. Place it out of its
allotted time and/or space and that religion no longer exists. Or has
yet to be invented by man.

That the religion has yet to exist is ample proof that man is the
inventor and not some god or gods. A god would have the patience and
power over human minds to last forever in a simple, original form. Man
may try to embroider the truth but "god" would correct their nonsense
at every new iteration. Change one iota of the teachings of the human
"prophet" claiming insight and that religion no longer exists. That
religion is now officially dead. Another religion has been invented to
replace it. And another and another until time grows as old and slow
as the gods themselves.

One generation where the offspring are not brainwashed by their
parents is all it takes for a religion to cease to exist, forever. It
cannot be reinvented by the brightest minds on the planet struggling
for millennia. Simultaneously burning all the books is all that is
required to end all religions. Until the next is invented by man.

Science can be reinvented endlessly and will always provide the same
results. Most of science could even be reinvented in full by a
surviving AI construction with sufficient sensors if man ceased to
exist overnight. However "clever" an AI construction could not
reinvent Islam or Christianity. Nor the Roman, Greek, Druid's or
Aztec's gods.

Religion can never be reinvented. It is an artifice of small,
arrogant, human minds telling fantasies and lies for personal gain.
Attention seeking is a lowest common denominator. Seeking power
without muscle backup is another. Circumventing democracy is popular.

Religions are the last bastion of dictatorship over democratic
countries. Nobody gets to vote for the priests who wield such corrupt
power over others. Few may opt out of taxpayer's support for the
favourite religion of the day. Few may opt out of the official
religion of any particular country. Many religions bully others into
submission even when the aggressors form a small minority of the
population.. There is ample evidence throughout history, until the
present day, that religious power is totally corrupting. They may deny
it but those who practice religion do so corruptly for personal power,
greed, political control or the avoidance of prosecution for crimes
against humanity. Devoutly religious countries are usually poverty
stricken with a clique of ultra-rich men wielding religious power
corruptly. Religion = inequality.

On Mar 14, 12:07*pm, "A Believer" wrote:
As a Christian myself, I find your comments offensive. *Not just this single
post, but over a whole series of posts. *You seem to want to attack
religion, God, and especially Christianity.


He has a good reason to attack Christianity and I don't blame him,what
is objectionable,at least to this Christian,is the loathsome
'compromise' where 'science is science and faith is faith' that has
been emerging for quite some time.

Take this evolution business for instance,I work on rotational
geodynamics and its consequences on the fractured surface
crust,surface features and events such as Earthquakes and volcanic
activity,my heritage is through Wegener,Smith and Steno in drawing up
the basic geological evolutionary timeline allied with biological
evolutionary factors such as fossils.The I come across the most anti-
scientific intrusion such as Darwin's 'cause' for evolution which is a
giant distraction.

This Darwin guy ripped the reasoning from an essay on national
supremacy and applied it to biological evolution as a 'law' -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

Unless you actually read what Thomas Malthus wrote,you will have no
idea just how anti-scientific the leap from national supremacy to
"survival of the fittest" actually is -

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

I mean,this is great stuff if you like opinions about invasion of
another country ,rape, pillage and whatever but as a basis for
biological evolution,well....

The only safe haven at the moment is astronomy,the technical issues
and its geometric foundations provide a very strong platform for
countering ideologies which are neither particularly scientific or
religious but unfortunately there is some difficulty in finding people
who actually like astronomy and its reasoning from the racket going on
about science vs religion or the new tendency to see them as separate
entities but buddies.

"oriel36" wrote in message

"He has a good reason to attack Christianity and I don't blame him,what
is objectionable,at least to this Christian,is the loathsome
'compromise' where 'science is science and faith is faith' that has
been emerging for quite some time."

From what I have experienced throughout life, science ISN'T always science
and is required to have a basis in faith at times. So, at least from what I
have seen, the two are often more related than not. Radicalism is what
creates the implied greater separation, nothing more.

"Take this evolution business for instance,I work on rotational
geodynamics and its consequences on the fractured surface
crust,surface features and events such as Earthquakes and volcanic
activity,my heritage is through Wegener,Smith and Steno in drawing up
the basic geological evolutionary timeline allied with biological
evolutionary factors such as fossils.The I come across the most anti-
scientific intrusion such as Darwin's 'cause' for evolution which is a
giant distraction."

Based on the evidence, evolution did not happen. There are too many gaps in
the evolutionary sequence to suggest that life forms evolved over time.
Scientists are always breeding microrganisms in the laboratory, exposing
them to radiation, viruses- anything else they can think of- to try and
cause evolution. Never happens. The organism either dies, may become more
resistant, but the bodily and structural forms never change and always
remain the same. If evolution existed, you'd have much stronger links
between individual species as they evolved than has been found. Organsims
show evidence of adaptation, such as color changes within a short period to
ward off preditors for example, but no evolving of body.

A-Believer

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:58:53 -0400, "A Believer"
wrote:

Based on the evidence, evolution did not happen. There are too many gaps in
the evolutionary sequence to suggest that life forms evolved over time.
Scientists are always breeding microrganisms in the laboratory, exposing
them to radiation, viruses- anything else they can think of- to try and
cause evolution. Never happens...

This is a good example of what I referred to earlier. While you can
certainly believe in a creator of some sort without any contradiction of
observed facts, your position on evolution reflects nothing but
ignorance. There are no significant gaps in the evolutionary sequence.
Evolution is directly observed both in nature and in the lab, over time
scales from hours with some species to years with others (and over
millions of years in the fossil record). It is as impossible to deny
that evolution is an observed fact as it is that the Earth is a sphere,
and arguing against either can only come from blind dogma
(irrationality) or pure ignorance.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:58:53 -0400, "A Believer"
wrote:

Based on the evidence, evolution did not happen. There are too many gaps
in
the evolutionary sequence to suggest that life forms evolved over time.
Scientists are always breeding microrganisms in the laboratory, exposing
them to radiation, viruses- anything else they can think of- to try and
cause evolution. Never happens...

This is a good example of what I referred to earlier. While you can
certainly believe in a creator of some sort without any contradiction of
observed facts, your position on evolution reflects nothing but
ignorance. There are no significant gaps in the evolutionary sequence.
Evolution is directly observed both in nature and in the lab, over time
scales from hours with some species to years with others (and over
millions of years in the fossil record).

Give me an example of evolution in the lab, the we'll go from there.

It is as impossible to deny
that evolution is an observed fact as it is that the Earth is a sphere,
and arguing against either can only come from blind dogma
(irrationality) or pure ignorance.

How can you say that it's an observed fact? Give me some examples, keeping
in mind that there is a big difference between short-term adaptations and
evolution.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Mar 14, 7:07*am, "A Believer" wrote:
As a Christian myself, I find your comments offensive. *Not just this single
post, but over a whole series of posts. *You seem to want to attack
religion, God, and especially Christianity. *What's your beef? *Apparently,
something from the past has triggered your fury. *While I might be able to
understand it, IF you shared the source of your troubles (molestation, my
wee-wee bigger than yours, etc etc), I am growing intolerant of your
constant bitching.

If you indeed have problems with the aforementioned, I suggest you seek out
the appropriate group instead of trying to **** off people here. *Lots of
attacking and flames go on in such groups and I encourage you to take your
**** there.

Ever heard of filters? *It amazes me so often the people who claim they use
them to filter out ng garbage, but then suddenly attack others as if they
had no filter. *I don't know if you are one of those, nor do I care, but if
you are going to get so wound up over essentially nothing I suggest you
start using them instead of moaning about your bs to everyone here.

Now that we've cleared the path, I am going to share a little something that
I hope you and others take serious note of: *I have a Masters +60 in Physics
(doctor equivalency) and I DO believe in God. *There are those who claim
lack of trust in such individuals, but I work along people all of the time
in scientific endeavors and none of my belief affects my use of the
scientific method. *In fact, much of what we experiment with only helps to
reinforce external influence from an outside force. *Of course, you don't
believe this, but when was the last time you performed high level physical
science in a very expensive laboratory setting? *I'll tell you something
else, athiesm in my workplace, where I have been 15+ years, is about 10% and
the rest are believers. *We are not kooks, irrational, closed minded, just
common ordinary folks with high level educations. *The majority of us chose
not to let education interfere with our belief system, and we'll meet/
exceed our lab work with anyone else on any day.

Oh, one other thing before I cut the cord. *Do you and others realize that
there is a substantial amount of homeschooling occurring in the US and the
number is continuing to increase by leaps and bounds? *This may not be
significant, but this is: *one of the top selling books is called "Advanced
Physics In Creation". *Interesting, isn't it?

A_Believer

I think what Chris Bee is saying is that compassion always trumps
faith. Faith is always about the ego - having faith allows one to
believe in one's own righteousness and allows one to judge those who
do not have faith as being wicked. The more irrational the belief, the
stronger the faith is thought to be. The end result of ego-led faith
is humans seeking power over others.

The reason compassion always trumps faith is that it leads to freedom,
both of the mind and spirit. Faith inevitably leads to bondage and
dominance of one person over another - simply because we humans are
faulty. Compassion leads to free cooperation, and in the end it leads
to human progress. Compassion is extremely difficult, because it
requires one to set aside one's ego, and not let one's passion rule.
It requires turning the other cheek when one is wronged.

Faith in an irrational belief is a dead end, it's like sugar in that
it makes you feel good for a time but has no nurtitional value. I can
understand fully the appeal of faith in the irrational - after all how
many would deny a chance to spend eternity in heaven. Reality is
simply too cold a place for most people. What is dangerous is not a
simple belief system that comforts the believer, what is dangerous is
the misuse of this to attain power over others.

I believe in Jesus' words, but do not worship his body. I worship his
message (the term worship is defined as holding up something of
worth). His words are similar to those of other wise men before his
time and after. Hillel has said that the entire text of the Tora can
be summed up by the Golden Rule, everything else being commentary. Can
I follow these words, and do I follow them always? Well, I'm human, so
all I can do is try.

UncleRollo

This is a good example of what I referred to earlier. While you can
certainly believe in a creator of some sort without any contradiction of
observed facts, your position on evolution reflects nothing but
ignorance. There are no significant gaps in the evolutionary sequence.
Evolution is directly observed both in nature and in the lab, over time
scales from hours with some species to years with others (and over
millions of years in the fossil record). It is as impossible to deny
that evolution is an observed fact as it is that the Earth is a sphere,
and arguing against either can only come from blind dogma
(irrationality) or pure ignorance.

Chris, I'm about to leave for a day on Palomar (I'm a docent), so I won't
have time to help you. If you choose to answer this creationist's reply,
you might look into Lenski's current work on the evolution of E. coli
bacteria. For the fossil record, a really super recent (2007) source is
"Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by Donald R. Prothero.
A good recent roundup of all of the evidence for evolution is in "Why
evolution is true" by Jerry A. Coyne. This was published in 2009. I tend
to view anything published prior to, say, 2000, to probably be obsolete,
though the principles are usually still good. Creationists rarely consult
current literature, basing their arguments on what was known or what
somebody said 20 or more years ago -- which is ancient history in science.
Even Prothero's book is being overtaken by new developments in some groups
of fossils.

BTW, your post from 3/13 at 5:19 PM (my time, PST) -- "It's simply a
question of evidence...etc." -- is a great post. It's 100% in line with my
own views.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:01:19 GMT, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:

Chris, I'm about to leave for a day on Palomar (I'm a docent), so I won't
have time to help you. If you choose to answer this creationist's reply,
you might look into Lenski's current work on the evolution of E. coli
bacteria...

I'm not going to bother. He lacks the intellectual skills to even
interpret simple observation, let alone understand the mechanisms. Why
waste my time? He's a lost cause.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Mar 14, 2:58*pm, "A Believer" wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

"He has a good reason to attack Christianity and I don't blame him,what
is objectionable,at least to this Christian,is the loathsome
'compromise' where 'science is science and faith is faith' that has
been emerging for quite some time."

From what I have experienced throughout life, science ISN'T always science
and is required to have a basis in faith at times. *So, at least from what I
have seen, the two are often more related than not. *Radicalism is what
creates the implied greater separation, nothing more.

"Take this evolution business for instance,I work on rotational
geodynamics and its consequences on the fractured surface
crust,surface features and events such as Earthquakes and volcanic
activity,my heritage is through Wegener,Smith and Steno in drawing up
the basic geological evolutionary timeline allied with biological
evolutionary factors such as fossils.The I come across the most anti-
scientific intrusion such as Darwin's 'cause' for evolution which is a
giant distraction."

Based on the evidence, evolution did not happen. *There are too many gaps in
the evolutionary sequence to suggest that life forms evolved over time.

Assuming nobody here needs reminding that the biological evolutionary
framework existed prior to Darwin's 'cause' via steno and Smith ,the
issue is strictly whether a quasi-political essay on national
supremacy and the justification for invasion of one country over
another can be transfered to biological evolution but this is only a
minor distraction compared to the real issues which revolve around the
'scientific method' itself.

I read the essay of Malthus,and it is an essay,and he tries to give
his views more substance to his opinions by peppering his essay with
references to Newton and the 'natural laws' -

"If this be the case, there is at once an end of all human science.
The whole train of reasonings from effects to causes will be
destroyed. We may shut our eyes to the book of nature, as it will no
longer be of any use to read it. The wildest and most improbable
conjectures may be advanced with as much certainty as the most just
and sublime theories, founded on careful and reiterated experiments.
We may return again to the old mode of philosophizing, and make facts
bend to systems, instead of establishing systems upon facts. The grand
and consistent theory of Newton, will be placed upon the same footing
as the wild and eccentric hypotheses of Descartes. In short, if the
laws of nature are thus fickle and inconstant; if it can be affirmed,
and be believed, that they will change, when for ages and ages they
have appeared immutable, the human mind will no longer have any
incitements to inquiry, but must remain fixed in inactive torpor, or
amuse itself only in bewildering dreams and extravagant fancies."

http://www.econlib.org/library/Malth...4.html#Chapter IX

Most people approach Darwin after the fact or rather mix evolution
with genetics and one hundred different cross currents but I find
Darwin's approach useful,in that he jumped on the 'natural law'
bandwagon about the same time dynamicists were getting fed up with
Newton and his mechanical solar system driven by Flamsteed's calendar
based Ra/Dec framework -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425

Most here,whether they like it or not,are influenced by Newton's Arian
outlook insofar as his agenda has all the traits of an Arian
endeavor ,unfortunately it excludes most here from the arguments of
substance surrounding topics which require a high degree of intuitive
intelligence such as structural astronomy or evolutionary biology/
geology.



Scientists are always breeding microrganisms in the laboratory, exposing
them to radiation, viruses- anything else they can think of- to try and
cause evolution. *Never happens. * The organism either dies, may become more
resistant, but the bodily and structural forms never change and always
remain the same. *If evolution existed, you'd have much stronger links
between individual species as they evolved than has been found. *Organsims
show evidence of adaptation, such as color changes within a short period to
ward off preditors for example, but no evolving of body.

A-Believer

The evolutionary framework,either in its biological or geological
formats are still in its infancy but are being neglected or distracted
by the vacuous racket of people who are neither scientific or
religious.