Posted by Damien [24.159.232.32 - 24-159-232-32.jvl.wi.charter.com] on 21 March 2004 at 21.41.52 ZuluTime:

In Reply to: Evolution is a 'BIG LIE' posted by David Jay Jordan on 21 March 2004 at 14.53.30 ZuluTime:

Perhaps I shouldn't be doing this because A) The poster of this crap is probably not going to ever return here, and B) The poster of this crap is most probably full of shit in the claims that he actually believes it. But what the hell, it's the beginning of spring break, and I've got some spare time on my hands.

>>> All the following letter was sent in by a Christian friend see credits in the end and was NOT written by myself,

You wouldn't mind translating this into adult for us, would you?

>>>except for this first paragraph, and yet I totally agree with its contents scientifically and spiritually..

But not grammatically?

>>>Why because

...what?

>>>it totally destroys the myth of Evolution,

Wow, so not only is evolution both a number of valid theories and an observed fact among innumerable populations of organisms, but it's also a belief-system held by ancient cultures? Damn, it's got more going for it that I ever would have imagined.

>>>for all Creation was made by the Creator

Aside from yet another example of begging the question, thanks for stating the obvious. I mean, since when is a creation, hypothetical or not, *not* made by a creator?

>>>(Jesus)

I guess we have what kind of spam this is...wait for it...nailed. *giggles*

>>>which can be proven by science

The day science proves something is the day religion institutes a new program of active critical thinking.

>>>and seen through design according to reason and logic and all fields of science

Unsupported assertion #4.

>>>rather than theories.and Evolution,

I see, another A student from Punctuation for Leisure 101.

>>> the Biggest Lie ever told.

Do we really need capitalization here?

>>>If you want other proofs

So you do math as well?

>>>and my writings,

Well, we already know you do fiction. A pity it is so half-assed.

>>>please hyperlink to Creation versus Evolution.

How about...no.

>>> Thanks

Your welcome.

>>>and enjoy the truth of Creation rather than the Lie of Evolution

Unsupported assertion #, fuck it, I can't keep count.

>>>. . . . . . . . .

And this would be...?

>>>David Jay Jordan .... B.Sc.

Okay, an ellipse has 3 (three (...)) little dots.

>>>Evolution is a total LIE scientifically because there is absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Aside from the little fact that allele frequencies change in populations over time.

>>> Hence it is a religion forced upon students.

So, according to this 'genious', a religion is a lie without any evidence to back it up. Well, at least he's honest about that.

>>> and religiously believed

As opposed to, say, non-religiously believing?

>>>even by those that haven't studied Science.

*blinks* I've taken biology, I've taken botany, I've taken genetics, but I have never taken a course labeled 'science'. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on what this mysterious study is.

>>>Yet because the BIGGER the lie is, and evolution is a BIG LIE, then the more people are apt to believe it,

When this, too, is translated into adult, I'll get to it.

>>>because they can't possibly believe you would dare to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!

Wasn't this an argument for christianity proposed by Lewis Clarke?

>>>.. SO THE DEVIL WAS SMART WITH EVOLUTION. HE TOLD THE BIG LIE:

Once again, it is demonstrated that Satan is the most important and revered part of christian theology. Funny, jav-hod-whateverthehellitis never gets a completely all-capped sentence in honour of him.

>>>"In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident, forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah.

So, er, what does this have to do with changing allele frequencies in populations?

>>> Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of beasts over millions of years,

1) What is a 'beast'? (I will not accept 'That big blue thing from the X-men' as an answer)
     2) What are 'lower forms of beasts'?

>>>from one species to another,

'Species' has never been adequetely defined, let's stick to the topic, please.

>>>and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

Since when is 'originated' able to be used in this sense? I wonder how many things I can originate. I wonder how many times I day I can 'spontaniously originate' something.

>>>THIS DOCTRINE OF DELUSION HAS BECOME THE GENERAL THEME OF MODERN SO-CALLED SCIENCE,

So christians also hold science as more important than their gawd?

>>>and is therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk!

So it's 'pure', but it's not 'true'? Perhaps I should once again start work on my fundy/normalspeak translation guide.

>>>Evolution is now referred to as the "great principle" of biology.

By who?

>>>But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths.

It also can be the head of an educational facility. It could also be a tract of land. But hell, I never accused trolls of being thorough.

>>> And

This dipshit's an alleged college graduate and he still starts sentences with 'and'?

>>>if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact,

Much the same as anything else in science.

>>>much less the foundation or the basis of other truths.

When science starts dealing with 'truths', religion will start a new program on reasoned probabilities.

>>>Now when I'm talking about evolution,

Which you haven't done much of yet. When are you going to get around to showing how changing allele frequencies in populations over time is a lie?

>>>I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OR MINIMIZING THE TRUE SCIENCE OF TRUE BIOLOGY,

As opposed to, say, the true science of false biology, or the false science of true biology, or maybe the false science of false biology.

>>>which can be proven

Then it isn't a science, dipshit.

>>>--how plants grow and animals propagate and multiply and so on.

Which has to do with evolution, go figure.

>>>I'm talking about a wild, fictitious fairytale of imagination which they have never come close to proving!.

You mean christianity?

>>>THERE IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLUTION!

Nor is there any proof for gravity. Did you have a point to make?

>>>It has to be believed, therefore it's a faith, therefore it's a religion!

So, believing that your wife is cheating on you is a religion?

>>>So they're teaching a new compulsory religion in today's hallowed halls of higher learning.

So, marijuana has become legalized in educational facilities?

>>>Even the great high priest and founding father of this new false faith, Charles Darwin himself,

This poor bastard got the shaft, priest-wise. Most priests get turned into saints after they die, and while they live, usually are supplied with an endless number of eager, naive altar-boys for their own pleasures.

>>>confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief)

Um, there was no emphasis on 'belief', it is the same size, same font, and same writing style as everything around it.

>>> in natural selection (evolution)

So, er, is evolution natural selection, or is it, as you claimed earlier, abiogenesis and the origin of cosmology?

>>>must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details, WE CAN PROVE THAT NO ONE SPECIES HAS CHANGED ... NOR CAN WE PROVE THAT THE SUPPOSED CHANGES ARE BENEFICIAL, which is the groundwork of the theory."

You do realize that if you submitted this paper at any educational institution, you would be facing federal charges of plagiarism and most likely expelled from the school, right?

>>>Darwin's ardent apostle and dedicated disciple,

Look guys! I learned how to do assonance and alliteration! I'm a proud poet, perusing piles of pun-filled periodicals!

>>> Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence,

When I find *anything* based on 'true' scientific 'facts', I'll get back to you.

>>>but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but AN ACT OF PHILOSOPHICAL FAITH.".

College boy, only one period is needed at the end of that.

>>>SO EVOLUTION IS REALLY A RELIGION OF UNBELIEF IN GOD.

Okay, so evolution, according to this moron, is either...
     1) Abiogenesis.
     2) The origin of cosmology.
     3) Natural selection.
     4) Atheism.

>>>And that's its whole purpose; To eliminate faith in God and to foster the false doctrine of devils that the creation created itself and God had nothing to do with it, so there doesn't need to be a God--it could have happened without Him!

So, when are we going to get around to changing allele frequencies?

>>> (Pointless, off-topic rambling deleted here)... These are thy gods, these are the creatures that made you, this is what you came from, they are your creators"--this is exactly what evolution teaches!

Definition #5) Opposed to number four, evolution now teaches a belief in gods.

>>>LIFE FROM NON-LIFE?
      . AT THE CORE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS THE BIG ASSUMPTION THAT LIFE SOMEHOW AROSE FROM NON-LIFE,

Wrong.

>>> that by pure CHANCE the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process -- POOF -- life created itself!

Wrong.

>>>This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity.".

Wrong in oh so many ways.

>>>In other words, INANIMATE MATTER NEVER INCREASES ITS OWN ORDER, ORGANISATION OR COMPLEXITY--THESE ALWAYS DECREASE!

Unnecessary to point out, but once again, wrong.

>>>And even if the elements could arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals!

Once again, wrong.

>>>The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetches

So far-...what?

>>>that Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

So, er, when are we going to get around to changing allele frequencies?

>>>. As for the so-called "simple cell", from which the evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, Look Magazine declared, "THE CELL IS AS COMPLICATED AS NEW YOUR CITY."

I own a city? Damn, I must have left the deed under the fridge.

>>>The well-known evolutionist Loren Eisely likewise admitted in his book, The Immense Journey, that "Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth.". Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by itself--POOF--without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator?

Considering the fact that many of the people responsible for constructing cities were not intelligent, nor able to plan well, yes.

>>>Such is the logic of evolution's imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex "simple" cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind, unguided chance!

Definition of evolution #6) A sentient organism capable of imagining things.

>>>Commenting on this assumption, the British biologist Woodger said, "It is simple dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen." The absurdity of this evolutionary logic is only amplified as we move on to the even more complex, multi-celled forms of life.

So, er, what does any of this have to do with changing allele frequencies in a population over time?

>>>THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIES
      . ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, TODAY'S PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ARE ALL MERELY TRANSITIONAL FORMS, part of an endless chain of life whose links are gradually evolving into more advanced stages.

Wrong, again.

>>>For this reason Darwin regarded the classification "species" as "a mere useless abstraction" and "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience.".

I know of many scientists who hold the same view.

>>>THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO GOD'S WORD

So, er, when are we going to get around to evolution?

>>>which states that all living creatures were created "after their kind" with the ability to bring forth seed, or fruit, "after their Kind." (Gen. 1)

Never mind the fact that 'kind' is not, nor has it ever been, defined.

>>>Now this word "kind" is the old King James translation of the Hebrew word "min", which today's scholars have translated to which today's scholars have translated to mean "species"

So, in that case, the ark held several hundred million different 'kinds' of animals?

>>> So today's living creatures are not the result of some sort of transmutation of species, but definite set species!

So then, what's a 'species'?

>>>Not natural selection, but God's selection! Not evolutionary adaptations, but God's Creations!

So, er, when are we going to get around to changing allele frequencies?

>>>WE NEVER HEARD YET OR THEY NEVER PROVED YET THAT ANY DOG EVER BECAME A CAT OR A CAT A DOG!

...so?

>>>There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or no cat-dogs!

Nor are there any spider-flies, did you have a point to make?

>>>Because God created everything "after its own kind" and they can't possibly get out of that kind.

Except for, say, mules.

>>> They may vary within their kind or specie, but they'll never change into another! It's impossible!