RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gary Orlando <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:18:21 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:37:34 -0500, Anwar J Goins <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:


>Arjen, you continue to argue from an evolutionary point of view. I was
>discarding this view in my argument.

yes, that makes sense.  just discard it.  makes your view the default. ;-)

> You did not argue me on the fact
>that no known process adds to the genetic code of a species and that all
>processes which alter the genetic code either damage it or destroy it.

the key is "known".

here is a paper that attempts to describe the process.

http://bayes.colorado.edu/Papers/rewiring.pdf

>As for your transitional creature I'll do some more research on him. I
>know that many of the so called transitional creatures were proven to be
>false.

even after being told about transitional creatures, the creationist will
subsequently and conveniently continue to maintain that they do not exist,
when in fact they quite clearly do.

>THERE IS NO KNOWN
>PROCESS WHICH ADDS NEW INFO TO THE GENETIC CODE. This is the fact which
>impedes the evolution theory

see above

try this, "there is no known process which supports the position of
creationism"  DOES THAT CAUSE YOUR THEORY TO BE "IMPEDED"?

wait, evolution can not be explained to satisfy the layman, so we
therefore obviously accept the position that a supernatural being
did it by snapping her fingers?  I love it.

>It is the bias of
>scientists against God and religion which makes them come up with their
>own religious and mythical inventions for the origin of the world's
>species.

absurd

>Evolution needs to be dropped.

why?  does it threaten you?  do you have an alternative theory that is
better?

>But the meat is still very much alive as is the the internals of
>the seed and plant.

fruit ripens after picking.
meat decomposes after, um, picking...

>You can slit
>my throat but every part of my body is still active just not the one
>that worked to protect the whole.

not for long...

gary

ATOM RSS1 RSS2