Evolution has been Disproven

I know you're responding to an earlier message and so probably hadn't read up as far as the warnings, but if we could all avoid the rhetorical skirmishing and work toward bringing the thread back on topic it would be appreciated. Thanks!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Sure, Percy. Coming late to the fray, I thought I would draw parallels between a lack of complete knowledge about Evolution/Abiogenesis and a dearth of examination by Creatonists into their biological/chemical origins. IOW, pot calling the kettle black.

whom ever said that evolutionists belive that life comes from non-life should be smacked.
we cannot prove that these things happened though i do remember a man who took some common gassous elements found in our atmosphere billions of years ago. he then created a spark to see if life would start. the gassous elements did react but nothing living came up but some molecules that were the building blocks for neucleotided were created. thus the assumption that maybe they came together somehow to make DNA or sumthin. we cannot prove it so we do not state it, evolutionists do not say there is no God all evos say is that life changes over time.
so smak someone when they say something like that.science can answer everything, we are just too stupid to figure annything out.
~PerfectDeath

Percy that's the first non-factual statement Iv'e ever seen you post.

Hi Q,
Just because Juhranimo lacks the motivation requisite to understand or persue the information you posted does not mean the entire forum population is so handicapped. As you yourself observed, it was worth it because it may inform other readers, if not the intended beneficiary of your efforts. Being an evolutionary biologist with a relatively narrow specialization in molecular evolution of mammals, all the references you posted were new to me (I study evolution and not abiogenesis)...and you saved me the time of immediately having to look everything up with a recap. I think the way you did it is the way to go...which is more informative, Quetzal's well constructed response or Juhranimo's simplisitc "God is still God"?This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 02-11-2005 08:49 AM

Stick around a while, you'll get used to it! Briefly again, since this is off-topic, I should have said I do not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and I do not believe Jesus was the son of God, or even that he was a real person. I'm guessing that you're implying there are sects of Christianity that do not accept the trinity, perhaps you can clarify, but since most people think of Christianity as a Christ-based movement, I don't normally describe myself as a Christian.--Percy

Thank you for playing nice!This message has been edited by Admin, 02-11-2005 09:13 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Check out the edited version.

You and Mammuthus are rewriting history.

I had unecessary insults in the first and last lines. Reading the quoted passage in Percy's edited post, you can probably figure out what the more objectional commet was.

I've seen the posts of both of you before the edits. But others may not have. In this case, it's not a big deal, but in a real discussion it might pose great problems for others to follow the argument if people start editing their posts. So it's a bad example. If it is really necessary to edit a post, it's best to comment on the edits, annotating them as it were. Or you can draw a line through what you would have deleted use strikethrough.

Hi Parasomnium!Your concern about editing posts is understood, but this thread was having difficulty staying focused. When trying to get a thread back on track it can be very distracting for some people to ignore insulting comments, even if they're struck through.As an example, imagine if the above paragraph looked like what follows, where I've inserted some gratuitous insults just as an example. Not everyone would have the ability to ignore the struck through comments:

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Percy,That was a very boring quite an amusing example you gave there. It really made me so angry laugh out loud, you are a real joker.But seriously, I understand what you mean. As I said, in the case at hand it isn't very important, and I realise of course that it's not very sensible to strike through an insult, leaving it visible for posterity. But I've seen a normal reply (well, sort of normal anyway) to me being changed so as to mean something altogether different, which muddled the discussion for other readers.To my mind, the best way to edit a post is to add comment at the end of it, to clarify what was changed. And if one wants to take back an insult, one could simply say that an insult was replaced by whatever one mentions next. The only case of editing needing no comment, in my opinion, is the correction of language errors such as in spelling or grammar.My apologies for getting this thread even further derailed than it is already.{edited to replace an insult with "real joker"}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 11 February 2005 22:11 AM

There, 24 hours to think and read.I hope that has helped. Mispeling curected. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 02-11-2005 18:00 AM

Percy writes:

quote:

---

I'm guessing that you're implying there are sects of Christianity that do not accept the trinity, perhaps you can clarify, but since most people think of Christianity as a Christ-based movement, I don't normally describe myself as a Christian.

---

Well, they're called "Unitarians," for one thing.Now, now, don't get ahead of me. I am perfectly aware that the current Unitarian/Universalist movement is extremely tolerant of everybody's philosophical attitude. Hell, you can be an atheist and still call yourself a Unitarian and they don't mind and will welcome and accept you. You can even be a minister in the church and be an atheist. It's very weird.I'm talking about the origins of Unitarianism. It grew as a reaction to the insistence in Protestantism upon the trinity. Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for denying the trinity. It found a big foothold in England during the 17th and 18th centuries and the Neoclassicism of the time certainly helped. With the likes of Emerson and Parker getting behind it, it became a religion of reason and tolerance, focusing on universal salvation for everyone (thus the "Universalist" part of the current UU movement).Again, while you can find UUs of any particular stripe, the general covenant of the church is, "In the love of truth, and in the spirit of Jesus, we unite for worship of God and the service of man," and thus we see the connection to Christianity even today.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!