|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gregory A Greenman
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: Gabriel Going For Guinness Book of World Records LYING A |
 |
|
In article <9de764lsc0teofh5ih4k4n5do5355sgu2j@4ax.com>, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> declared...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
: On Jun 19, 7:24 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:18:40 -0400, "Jack the Riddler"
:
: > <riddles...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
:
: > : You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......you evolved from a banana!
:
: > Exactly the kind of logic many evolutionists evoke.
:
: Where did *any* evolutionist *ever* say that humans evolved from a
: banana, LIAR?
No, that "sharing DNA" means things evolved from each other.
|
This is a joke, right? If I said my brother and I share alot of
genes, would you take that to mean that I evolved from him or him
from me? Apparently so.
My brother and I did not evolve one from the other, but rather we
share common ancestors. Likewise, bananas and humans did not
evolve one from the other, but rather share common ancestors.
I surprised that this needs explaining to someone so expert in
the field of biology.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cary Kittrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Gabriel Going For Guinness Book of World Records LYING A |
|
|
In article <MPG.22cdea7294308a0798b38f@newsgroups.comcast.net> Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> writes:
| Quote: |
In article <9de764lsc0teofh5ih4k4n5do5355sgu2j@
4ax.com>, Gabriel said...
You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......you evolved from a banana!
Exactly the kind of logic many evolutionists evoke.
No "evolutionist" ever used such an argument.
Where did *any* evolutionist *ever* say that humans evolved from a
banana, LIAR?
No, that "sharing DNA" means things evolved from each other.
The real arguments that link similarity in DNA with
kinship are far more interesting, and far more
rigorous, than your distortions imply.
|
More interestingly, his arguments imply that
not only did we evolve from a banana, bananas
also evolved from us.
I conclude, sadly, that Pastor Dave's understanding
of evolution is a bit...incomplete.
-- cary
| Quote: |
Based on hard research, we know how DNA is transmitted
to the next generation; we know the likelihood of
genetic changes; we know how sections of chromosomes
are swapped during meiosis; we know that certain
groups of genes are likely to be swapped together; we
know that non-critical portions of genes accumulate
changes at a particular rate on average; we know that
related animals share these arbitrary changes in the
same way that copies of a manuscript share errors
found in the source.
Putting these and many more facts together allows
scientists to concluded that certain organisms are
close cousins.
Once again, Gabriel, the truth isn't remotely akin to
your misrepresentations.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: Gabriel RUNNING From all Questions and Challenges! LoL! |
|
|
On Jun 26, 10:46 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
: On Jun 19, 7:24 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:18:40 -0400, "Jack the Riddler"
: >: > <riddles...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
:
: > : You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......you evolved from a banana!
:
: > Exactly the kind of logic many evolutionists evoke.
:
: Where did *any* evolutionist *ever* say that humans evolved from a
: banana, LIAR?
No, that "sharing DNA" means things evolved from each other.
|
It's not that we simply share DNA, it's that we can prove that we
share DNA *because* we evolved from common ancestors, Dickhead.
Why did you avoid the question Chicken Gabriel? Do you really want me
to start a series abotu all the quesitosn and challenges form which
you've FLED, Chicken?
Here's one:
| Quote: |
: Why are you, purportedly a Christian, LYING about what Christians have
: demonstrated, LIAR?
|
Here's another:
| Quote: |
: Why aren't you actually addressing the 12-part detailed description I
: gave you of what's wrong with your question instead of whining about
: it and woodenly chanting the same question, LIAR?
|
Here's another:
| Quote: |
: Why are you LYING that no one addressed what's wrong with your
: question when I gave you a detailed 12-part breakdown of what's wrong
: with it, LIAR?
|
Here's another:
| Quote: |
: Why are you LYING that people are running from your question, LIAR?
|
Here's another:
| Quote: |
: Why are you ignoring all the answers you've been given, all the help
: you've been offered, all the free education you're getting and
: continuing to chant the same question - the question you dishonestly
: modify when anyone answers it, and then continue to LIE that no one is
: addressing your clueless question, LIAR?
|
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:15 am Post subject: Gabriel Given a Sound Lesson From a Fellow Christian |
|
|
On Jun 26, 10:53 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:08:05 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net
wrote:
: On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:22:33 -0400, Gabriel
: <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
:
: >Show where it's ever been observed that populations of animals
: >that are not rats will produce, over generations, animals that
: >are now rats. And you can replace rat with any animal you wish.
:
:
: We now have rats. well many different species of rat to be precise,
: members of the genus Rattus.
:
: They are rodents, a very large group of mammals. The fossil record
: show rodent-like mammals appeared shortly after the extinction of the
: non-avian dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
:
: So yes, we have observed populations of non-rats turning into rats
: over millions of years.
No, that's just your beliefs that
* your dates of bones are correct
|
Indeed they are. Here's a fellow Christian showing you why you're a
moron, Gallus Gabriel:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Title: Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective
Author: Dr. Roger C. Wiens
[Rest of Gabriel's embarrassing STUPIDITY flushed where it belongs]
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
On Jun 11, 4:30 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
[snips]
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:42:41 -0400, Cory Albrecht wrote:
No, you have *beliefs* of what you think that evidence tells you. Quite
a different manner.
Keep repeating that it's about belief, rather than facts and logical
induction if it makes you happy, Gabriel.
Eventually you'll realize that this line of (il)logic you use to and
dismiss evolution applies just as well to your beliefs about God. Even
more so since we have have nearly countless pieces of evidence for
evolution, but no evidence that God exists.
You forget, he's a funnymentalist type. To him, there *is* evidence of
God - his pet book tells him God exists. To him, there *isn't* evidence
of evolution - his pet book says to.
In essence, if you can't prove your case out of his pet book, then it is
false, it is wrong, it doesn't matter whether you can see it, test it,
demonstrate it as absolutely valid and correct, it's not in the book or
worse, the book disagrees, so you're wrong. Only the book is right.
You have to remember, these people do *not* believe in God; they believe
in a book. Their only reason for even caring about God in the slightest
degree is that the book says they're supposed to.
This is borne out in their actions. On the one hand they claim to
believe in a being who supposedly created the entire universe *exactly as
it is*, but instead of learning about the universe, learning the works
and marvels put there for them by their supposed omniscient deity, they
reject it, they discard it, they pretend it does not work the way it
does... because the words of the book matter to them far more than what
their deity supposedly created; their god is a nothing, a blip, something
to pay lip service to. His works, his accomplishments, these can be
blithely ignored, because it is not God that matters to them, it is the
book.
To them, there is evidence of God and evidence _against_ evolution: the
book says so... and God is not even allowed to use methods such as
evolution, because God is required to follow the book. It's all the
book, nothing but the book.
--
But stupid you forgot to that notes like I said for you dumb asses
too. -- Bill Wolff
|
And this stupid book was written by ancient Jews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dubh Ghall
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: Re: Calling evil good and good evil (and calling God a "demo |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:44:52 -0400, Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Doesn't it strike you as odd that a person who:
* believes God's Word,
* believes that God did what He said He did
is called a devil-worshipper by someone who
* ignores what God's word says,
* removes the backbone from many books throughout both the Old
and the New Testaments,
* believes people are born sinless
* believes that God created a world of suffering and death
through no fault of man's,
* all of this so that you can believe in the atheist-created
God-denying beliefs of molecules to man evolutionism
Does your conscience not point out how wrong this is?
Isaiah 5:20-21 KJVR Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them
that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
|
KJV Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the LORD do all these things.
| Quote: |
Why don't you walk away from the god-hating lies
|
Why don't you read ALL of your bible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Brian E. Clark
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Going For Guinness Book of World Records LYING A |
|
|
In article <9de764lsc0teofh5ih4k4n5do5355sgu2j@
4ax.com>, Gabriel said...
| Quote: |
You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......you evolved from a banana!
Exactly the kind of logic many evolutionists evoke.
|
No "evolutionist" ever used such an argument.
| Quote: |
Where did *any* evolutionist *ever* say that humans evolved from a
banana, LIAR?
No, that "sharing DNA" means things evolved from each other.
|
The real arguments that link similarity in DNA with
kinship are far more interesting, and far more
rigorous, than your distortions imply.
Based on hard research, we know how DNA is transmitted
to the next generation; we know the likelihood of
genetic changes; we know how sections of chromosomes
are swapped during meiosis; we know that certain
groups of genes are likely to be swapped together; we
know that non-critical portions of genes accumulate
changes at a particular rate on average; we know that
related animals share these arbitrary changes in the
same way that copies of a manuscript share errors
found in the source.
Putting these and many more facts together allows
scientists to concluded that certain organisms are
close cousins.
Once again, Gabriel, the truth isn't remotely akin to
your misrepresentations.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:40:06 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : And has been shown to you many many times, evolution is observable,
: > : testable and verifiable. How do you think palaeontologists knew where to
: > : go to find Tiktaalik?
: I notice that you didn't respond to this part. Do you think the
: palaeontologists went to Ellesmere Island for the nice climate?
So you want to claim that because they know where some Tiktaaliks
are found, this means molecules to man evolution is true. Quite a
leap to say the least.
|
I don't make my decision based on a single point of evidence.
But any way you slice it, the *successful* prediction of finding a
fish->amphibian transitional fossil in a certain location and of a
certain age is a *plus* for evolution rather than a negative.
This is yet another piece in 150 years of overwhelming mountains of
evidence for an old Earth and for evolutionary theory. Unfortunately
there is no evidence for creationism.
| Quote: |
: > No, that's yet another dishonest statement. I never said God was
: > observable, verifiable or testable. I said, just like you, we
: > have evidence that gives us faith that our beliefs are true.
: And unless you're using totally different definitions than everybody
: else, having evidence means that one can verify (either wholly or
: partially) that which the evidence is for.
No, it means that others come to the same beliefs you do looking
at this evidence. Others look at the exact same evidence and come
to conclusions of intelligent design. Does this mean they
verified intelligent design? Of course not. Same difference.
|
Then why don't they write up those conclusions in peer-reviewed
scientific journals with the evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism?
Probably because, as Michael Behe admitted in court under oath nobody is
doing research on Intelligent design.
Just because you see faces in the clouds doesn't mean there's actually
giant cloud-people up there. You need to back up that hypothesis with data.
Specific complexity has been debunked. A young Earth has been debunked.
A global flood covering the mountains has been debunked. Intelligent
Design has been debunked.
Your pathetic eyeball-only verification has been debunked.
| Quote: |
: It is impossible for
: something to be unobservable, untestable and unverifiable and yet have
: evidence for it.
That's a misleading statement. You believe every single animal
came from populations of animals that were nothing like it, over
generations. (Molecules to man evolution). Yet you've never
observed anything like this. Now just because you believe it's
true by beliefs you come to by looking at dead bones and other
such "evidence" that means you've observed it the actual thing
you believe in?
|
Fossils are an observation. DNA analysis is an observation. You sticking
your fingers in your ears and yelling "La, la, la! Fossils don't count!
la, la, la!" is not counter evidence.
Also, tell me when you or another person last observed God creating the
Earth?
| Quote: |
No, we look at all kinds of evidence and believe it speaks
|
Funny then, how this evidence for Intelligent Design can never be shown.
Hint: Simply saying "We come to a different conclusion" is not
evidentiary support.
| Quote: |
clearly of intelligent design. Does this also mean we've observed
God doing so? Of course not.
|
If nobody having observed "[rats' in to [non-rats]" is evidence that
evolution didn't happen, as you say, then the logical extension is that
because nobody observed God creating Earth and the life on it that means
that creationism is wrong.
| Quote: |
: > You cross the line and dishonestly continue to claim what you
: > believe is fact, while it has yet to be observed, is not testable
: > and is not verifiable.
: Keep repeating that mantra, Gabriel. The London Underground Mosquito,
: Goatsbeards, the Kew Primrose, the Gigas Primrose and others all prove
: you wrong on the *observability* of he fact of evolution.
No, it just shows mosquitoes adapt, that mosquitoes produce
mosquitoes, both of which we know God's creation is already
capable of. It is nothing like the molecules to man evolution you
believe in, and try to associate such things with, attempting to
blur those very different things together to be the same thing,
when they are nothing like each other.
|
And what is this difference of which you speak? What is it that prevents
the small changes of adaptation from adding up into evolution? How does
this "prevention" work?
I find it amusing that a couple of months ago you were declaiming that
speciation had never happened, yet when given observed examples of it
you immediately shifted the goalpoasts into "X turning to not-X".
Even more amusing is that you refuse to spell out a minimum list of
changes that would need to happen to X before you would accept it as
not-X - and with a basal X of your choice!
| Quote: |
Show populations of mosquitoes produce, over generations, animals
that are clearly no longer mosquitoes at all. Now for once you'd
be observing a form of the molecules to man evolution you believe
in. The fact is this form of molecules to man evolution has never
once been observed, is not testable, and is not verifiable. But
animals only producing after their kind is observable, anyone can
test it, and is verifiable. And this is exactly what God's word
tells us.
Genesis 1:24-25 KJVR And God said, Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and
beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God
made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after
his kind: and God saw that it was good.
|
What is a "kind" and how does one tell the difference between one "kind"
and a different "kind"? What diagnostic tests can one use to make this
distinction between "kinds"?
Do you remember when you wrote this?
(<http://groups.google.ca/group/free.christians/msg/409e9ac76166a9af>)
/*** start quote ***
On Sun, 25 May 2008 05:31:42 -0500, Midwinter
<zvqjvagr...@tbbtyrznvy.pb.hx> wrote:
: Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> said :
:
: > Not only that, you cannot even get yourself to be honest and
: > actually admit it, but instead just say "creatures".
:
: That's because nature does not define what is or is not a rat.
Sure it does: a rat will not (sexually) mate (and reproduce) with
something that's clearly not a rat. Nature does a perfect job
defining what is or is not a rat.
*** end quote ***/
No matter how sharply you jam your fingers into your ears and yell "La,
la la!", the London Underground Mosquito still fits *your* diagnostic
test for telling when "[rat]" has become "no longer a [rat]".
| Quote: |
: The prediction of finding an animal like Tiktaalik in a specific
: geographic area is a *test* of the theory evolution.
No, it's a test of migration patterns, not a test of molecules to
|
Oh please do tell.
How is finding Tiktaalik fossils on Ellesmere Island a test of migration
patterns?
| Quote: |
man evolution, which many mistakenly (or perhaps dishonestly) try
to blur to be the same thing.
: Actually finding Tiktaalik is one piece of positive *verification* of
: the theory of evolution.
No, see above.
|
What? Just because you say so? Evidence. Put up or shut up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gabriel
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Still Running From Lie #9 |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:50:39 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:
: Gabriel wrote:
: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: > <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
: >
: > : On Jun 16, 11:40 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: > : >
: > : > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : Here's the single paragraph which evolves into twelve lies!
: > : > :
: > : > : "Please show where it's ever been observed that populations of [rat]s
: > : > : have produced, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
: > : > : accumulation of small changes) animals that are clearly no longer
: > : > : [rat]s. (And you can replace [rat] with any animal you wish)."
: > : > :
: > : > : 9.
: > : > : Gabriel's problem is that he can only deal with the same "types" he
: > : > : knew as a child looking at picture books in his mommy's lap. When
: > : > : challenged to define "type" - which has no meaning in the science of
: > : > : biology - he retreats to his security blanket mantra of "everyone
: > : > : knows what isn't a rat".
: > : >
: > : > The fact that you want to act like it's so difficult to see what
: > : > is a rat, and what is not a rat, only shows how dishonest you're
: > : > intent on being.
: > :
: > : If it's so easy, then go ahead and define a rat.
: >
: > I notice you didn't answer the questions:
: > So you don't know what a rat is when you see one?
: > And you don't know what is *not* a rat when you see one?
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neotoma_cinerea.jpg
:
: Rat or not a rat?
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kangaroo-rat.jpg
:
: Rat or not a rat?
:
: http://encarta.msn.com/media_461531959_761571975_-1_1/Bandicoot_Rat.html
:
: Rat or not a rat?
:
: One of these IS related to rattus.... But only one.
:
:
: Tokay
You seem to misunderstand the point, or perhaps my explanation is
not clear enough.
They believe in molecules to man evolution. Molecules --
eventually they become who knows how many different animals alone
the way to eventually becoming humans (along with every other
animal alive). What a *drastic* set of miraculous transformations
over generations!
So, to show such an observation of what you believe that backs up
your claims, you need to show populations of animals that are
*clearly* not rats produce animals that are rats.
So those pictures you show are all still types of *rats*. Show an
animal that is clearly not a rat and then ask "is that a rat?"
and the answer becomes an obvious no, which is my point.
Because we already know rats produce rats with some differences
(but still rats). You need to show a case of populations of rats
producing, over generations, animals that are *clearly* not rats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
SkyEyes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: Re: Gabriel Still Running From Lie #9 |
|
|
On Jun 27, 6:06 am, davidwg <davi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 27 Jun, 04:01, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:50:39 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
The bapt presumably stands for Baptist. I wonder what sort of Baptist
as there seem to be many different kinds.
|
Last time I bothered to look, the various Baptist conferences were:
American Baptist
Northern Baptist
Southern Baptist
Conservative Baptist
Freewill Baptist
Missionary Baptist
Primitive Baptist
There may be more (or less) by now.
| Quote: |
I gather the Southern
Baptists in the USA believe in the inerrancy of the bible and thus
believe that the universe was created as described in the creation
myth in Genesis.
|
So do the Conservative Baptists (I grew up Conservative Baptist). I
suspect the Freewill, Primitive, and Missionary Baptists probably do
as well, although I have no direct knowledge of their theology.
| Quote: |
Are they all ignorant of biology and do most of them
not progress beyond secondary education?
|
Yes, most of them are utterly lacking in an adequate basic science
education. Remember, many of them home-school *just so* their kids
won't be exposed to evolution.
However, scientific literacy isn't really the operative concept. If
you follow the debate between Gabriel and Budikka for long enough,
you'll see that. The real problem is that in order for their recipe
for salvation (i.e., not having to die and stay dead) to be valid,
they require *every word in the bible to be literally true*. Once
they start admitting that any part of the bible is, maybe, a metaphor
or parable, that opens the door of doubt: are those bits that talk
about salvation merely metaphor? Oh, the horror.
That's why christian fundamentalists have such a problem with
evolution: it casts doubt on their potential for getting everlasting
life.
| Quote: |
Such beliefs could easily
be the result of childhood indoctrination. The alternatives being
extreme gullibility and learning difficulties.
|
I was brought up Conservative Baptist and an OEC. One *can* recover
from it, although it's a particularly insidious form of child abuse.
| Quote: |
I have asked those who believe in creation to produce any evidence
they have to support their beliefs so far without success. I have
also asked what are the absolute moral laws which they allege exist.
Again so far no response.
|
Good luck with that. I've been a regular on alt.atheism since 1995,
and no creationist/moral absolutist has *ever* been able to answer
those questions.
| Quote: |
Are they just blabbermouths who cannot do anything but endlessly
regurgitate their sect's beliefs or do they have the ability to engage
in a discussion?
|
They're mewling little cowards who are scared shitless of dying.
Therefore, they have to be constantly reinforcing their beliefs -
mostly by forcing them onto other people.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: How Far Gabriel is Out of His Depth |
|
|
Here's an education for Gabriel who evidently cannot tell the
taxonomical difference between a little bacterium and a rat, yet who
arrogantly thinks he can define evolution and prove wrong a scientific
theory which has 150 years of supportive evidence, much of which was
supplied by people who worship the same god that Gallus Gabriel
pretends to.
A rat is a species ("rattus" - a "type"), which is part of a genus
(Rattus), which is part of a family (Muridae), which is part of an
order (Rodentia), which is part of a class (Mammalia), which is part
of a phylum (Chordata), which is part of a kingdom (Animalia).
Got that Gallus Gabriel?
OTOH, "Bacteria" is a description at the level of kingdom - wa-ay, wa-
ay, wa-ay above Rattus rattus.
In fact there are two main ones for bacteria, Archaea, and Eubacteria,
each of which is a **kingdom**. Got that?
A member of the Archaea kingdom is a wa-ay different "type" from a
member of the Eubacteria kingdom even though both are described
popularly as bacteria.
A member of Archaea is as different from a member of Eubacteria as a
member of the plant kingdom is from a member of the animal kingdom.
In fact, it's arguably *more* different even than that.
Got that, Gallus?
They don't even remotely compare to the piffling difference between
Rattus rattus and Rattus norvegicus, two "types" of rat.
Got that?
Any time you feel you can step up instead of running, and discuss rats
& mice, or bacterial evolution, or viral evolution let me know.
Meantime, keep running and chanting your dumb-ass ignorant question,
Gallus. It keeps me laughing if nothing else.
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: Gabriel Still Running From Lie #9 |
|
|
On Jun 27, 8:06 am, davidwg <davi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 27 Jun, 04:01, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:50:39 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
The bapt presumably stands for Baptist. I wonder what sort of Baptist
as there seem to be many different kinds. I gather the Southern
Baptists in the USA believe in the inerrancy of the bible and thus
believe that the universe was created as described in the creation
myth in Genesis. Are they all ignorant of biology and do most of them
not progress beyond secondary education? Such beliefs could easily
be the result of childhood indoctrination. The alternatives being
extreme gullibility and learning difficulties.
I have asked those who believe in creation to produce any evidence
they have to support their beliefs so far without success. I have
also asked what are the absolute moral laws which they allege exist.
Again so far no response.
Are they just blabbermouths who cannot do anything but endlessly
regurgitate their sect's beliefs or do they have the ability to engage
in a discussion?
Davidwg
|
I think at least in Gabriel's case, "bapt" is an acronym for "Barely
Able to Process Thought".
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tokay Pino Gris
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Still Running From Lie #9 |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:50:39 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:
: Gabriel wrote:
: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: > <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
:
: > : On Jun 16, 11:40 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: > :
: > : > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
: > :
: > : > : Here's the single paragraph which evolves into twelve lies!
: > : > :
: > : > : "Please show where it's ever been observed that populations of [rat]s
: > : > : have produced, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
: > : > : accumulation of small changes) animals that are clearly no longer
: > : > : [rat]s. (And you can replace [rat] with any animal you wish)."
: > : > :
: > : > : 9.
: > : > : Gabriel's problem is that he can only deal with the same "types" he
: > : > : knew as a child looking at picture books in his mommy's lap. When
: > : > : challenged to define "type" - which has no meaning in the science of
: > : > : biology - he retreats to his security blanket mantra of "everyone
: > : > : knows what isn't a rat".
: > :
: > : > The fact that you want to act like it's so difficult to see what
: > : > is a rat, and what is not a rat, only shows how dishonest you're
: > : > intent on being.
: > :
: > : If it's so easy, then go ahead and define a rat.
:
: > I notice you didn't answer the questions:
: > So you don't know what a rat is when you see one?
: > And you don't know what is *not* a rat when you see one?
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neotoma_cinerea.jpg
:
: Rat or not a rat?
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kangaroo-rat.jpg
:
: Rat or not a rat?
:
: http://encarta.msn.com/media_461531959_761571975_-1_1/Bandicoot_Rat.html
:
: Rat or not a rat?
:
: One of these IS related to rattus.... But only one.
:
:
: Tokay
You seem to misunderstand the point, or perhaps my explanation is
not clear enough.
|
You said:
| Quote: |
So you don't know what a rat is when you see one?
And you don't know what is *not* a rat when you see one?
|
And I gave examples. Are all of these "rats"?
Just by looking, how can you tell?
| Quote: |
They believe in molecules to man evolution. Molecules --
eventually they become who knows how many different animals alone
the way to eventually becoming humans (along with every other
animal alive). What a *drastic* set of miraculous transformations
over generations!
|
"Climbing mount improbable". Nothing miraculous about it.
| Quote: |
So, to show such an observation of what you believe that backs up
your claims, you need to show populations of animals that are
*clearly* not rats produce animals that are rats.
|
Antemus. Look it up. It's not a "rat".
Also, and rather closer to home: Karnimata
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO9950105.htm
| Quote: |
So those pictures you show are all still types of *rats*.
|
Nope, not really. Except for the Bandicota, they aren't really related
and are NOT rats. Also called "false rats".
Show an
| Quote: |
animal that is clearly not a rat and then ask "is that a rat?"
and the answer becomes an obvious no, which is my point.
|
My examples LOOKED like rats, but were not. The Bandicota ARE related,
but are NOT "rattus".
| Quote: |
Because we already know rats produce rats with some differences
(but still rats). You need to show a case of populations of rats
producing, over generations, animals that are *clearly* not rats.
|
"Some differences".... well. Add a lot of "small differences" and select
for them by natural selection and you got it. THAT is evolution.
It takes only a lot of small differences, selected for with natural
selection to get two VERY different animal.
Groundhogs and elephants ARE pretty closely related, actually.
Surprisingly close. Only a lot of small changes.
Tokay
--
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it
might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it
ain't. That's logic!"
Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pastor Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: Gabriel Still Running From Lie #9 |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:06:04 -0700 (PDT), davidwg
<davidwg@zetnet.co.uk> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
On 27 Jun, 04:01, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:50:39 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
The bapt presumably stands for Baptist. I wonder what sort of Baptist
as there seem to be many different kinds. I gather the Southern
Baptists in the USA believe in the inerrancy of the bible and thus
believe that the universe was created as described in the creation
myth in Genesis. Are they all ignorant of biology and do most of them
not progress beyond secondary education? Such beliefs could easily
be the result of childhood indoctrination. The alternatives being
extreme gullibility and learning difficulties.
|
This is what evolutionists do, folks. Instead of proving
to you that what they believe is true, they insult you
and claim that you must be a fool to believe what
the Bible says. The reality is, that this is what they
spend their time doing out of hatred for God, because
they know that they cannot prove what they believe
and all they can do, it try to ridicule you and when
you ask for proof, they will show you example of
microevolution (birds from birds, etc.) and claim it
proves macroevolution, which is their religion that
they really believe in, but can't prove and then when
you point out what they just did, they'll demand that
you prove that it couldn't happen and will demand
that you prove God and will attack you personally.
What they will never do, is provide that proof of
macroevolution that they always claim they have
"mountains of evidence" for. <chuckle>
| Quote: |
I have asked those who believe in creation to produce any evidence
they have to support their beliefs so far without success. I have
also asked what are the absolute moral laws which they allege exist.
Again so far no response.
|
See? They don't prove that evolution is true.
They demand proof of God and yet, at the
same time, when you corner them on the fact
that they believe what they do, because they
want to try to eliminate God, they will claim
that "Science doesn't deal with the question
of God".
Well, if that's true (it's not), then how come
when it comes time for them to prove evolution,
they want you to scientifically prove God?
They're hypocrites folks! And this idiot is just
doing this in response to someone asking him
to prove evolution!
Don't let idiots like this intimidate you folks.
He's just a little whining girl, acting out!
| Quote: |
Are they just blabbermouths who cannot do anything but endlessly
regurgitate their sect's beliefs or do they have the ability to engage
in a discussion?
|
Says the little baby whiner who parrots whatever
the evolutionist web pages say, which he doesn't
even understand. I wouldn't even waste my time
with you, you whiner!
Goodbye little baby girl! Go enjoy your religion,
where rain and rocks create goo and come to life!
Why, it's goo to you, by way of the zoo folks!
<chuckle>
Oh, duh, poor little baby girl didn't know that's
what she believes, huh? Yea dummy! You see,
you guys believe that "Millions of years ago,
it rained on the rocks and then...." enter the
pond goo and hey man, here we are! Yea,
non-living material turned into life, even though
that's impossible! And better yet, it did it all by
itself! And then like kept getting bigger and
better and stronger, even though that's also
impossible! Yea, that's it folks! And it happened
so many trillions of times we can't count them,
even though each time would be impossible,
since mutations can't do what they claim,
especially not billions of times in each creature,
which couldn't have even come to exist the way
they claim!
And he says that your belief sounds ridiculous?
Please! Bawahahaha!!!
--
"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
thomas p.
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:25 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Still Running From Lie #9 |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:f9vb64p35kj9rnb39g764175olss8n5v3s@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:06:04 -0700 (PDT), davidwg
davidwg@zetnet.co.uk> spake thusly:
On 27 Jun, 04:01, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:50:39 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
The bapt presumably stands for Baptist. I wonder what sort of Baptist
as there seem to be many different kinds. I gather the Southern
Baptists in the USA believe in the inerrancy of the bible and thus
believe that the universe was created as described in the creation
myth in Genesis. Are they all ignorant of biology and do most of them
not progress beyond secondary education? Such beliefs could easily
be the result of childhood indoctrination. The alternatives being
extreme gullibility and learning difficulties.
This is what evolutionists do, folks. Instead of proving
to you that what they believe is true, they insult you
and claim that you must be a fool to believe what
the Bible says. The reality is, that this is what they
spend their time doing out of hatred for God, because
they know that they cannot prove what they believe
and all they can do, it try to ridicule you and when
you ask for proof, they will show you example of
microevolution (birds from birds, etc.) and claim it
proves macroevolution, which is their religion that
they really believe in, but can't prove and then when
you point out what they just did, they'll demand that
you prove that it couldn't happen and will demand
that you prove God and will attack you personally.
What they will never do, is provide that proof of
macroevolution that they always claim they have
"mountains of evidence" for. <chuckle
|
Yes, it is not fair after you have provided all of that evidence for the
existence of your god.
| Quote: |
I have asked those who believe in creation to produce any evidence
they have to support their beliefs so far without success. I have
also asked what are the absolute moral laws which they allege exist.
Again so far no response.
See? They don't prove that evolution is true.
They demand proof of God and yet, at the
same time, when you corner them on the fact
that they believe what they do, because they
want to try to eliminate God,
|
When did that become a fact? It is odd that the very same people who taught
me about evolution also taught me that Jesus was my savior. Never mind, we
know that god could not have possibly done it that way right Dave?
they will claim
| Quote: |
that "Science doesn't deal with the question
of God".
|
It doesn't. Science does not deny or confirm the existence of a god, which
of course you are very aware of.
| Quote: |
Well, if that's true (it's not), then how come
when it comes time for them to prove evolution,
they want you to scientifically prove God?
|
I feel the same way about gravity. It's just a theory, but those crazy
scientists won't allow alternative theories to be taught. It's all an evil
conspiracy.
snip of remaining repetition of Dave's collection of strawmen and ad
hominems that he calls an argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
