Science Talk

raven1 · Guest

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

Gabriel · Guest

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

: On Jun 3, 9:58 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: > : > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: > : > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: > : > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: > : > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: > : > you wish).
: > :
: > : I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: > : gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: > : evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: > : replace [god] with any deity you wish).
: >
: > I rest my case.
:
: You;re a head case.
:
: > What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
: > unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms.
:
: Thanks for admitting that you blindly and gullibly believe in a myth.

No, just pointing out that we cannot observe God doing what He
did, cannot test it or verify it. Evidence is still quite
apparent that He did exactly what He told us He did. But also
pointing out what you have is also quite unobservable, untestable
and unverifiable.

You can throw all the insults you want, if you die in your sins
not believing in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, dying for your
sins, and not repenting and then asking Jesus to save you from
the punishment of your sins, you will unfortunately be choosing
to end up paying the punishment for those sins yourself,
*refusing* God's forgiveness. And when you die, it will be too
late to change your mind. :-(

:
: You cannot supply one iota of scientific evidence for your beliefs and
: that's where your story ends. Now that we have an on-the-record
: admission of it, we can proceed.
:
: And thanks for ignorantly falling face first into my trap. Yes,
: that's what it was - it wasn't the challenge which you cannot meet.
: It was just a simple trap to force you into facing the challenge you
: cannot meet.
:
: Now shall we get back to the question you've been running from for the
: last several weeks you pathetic little coward? Here's the preface to
: it. I'll put it in block caps so it's closer to your reading grade:
: IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT OBSERVATION OF A CRIME BY A WITNESS, WHAT
: DOES THE COURT USE TO PROSECUTE A CASE?
:
: By what means does a court prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person
: 'A' committed crime 'X' when there were no eye witnesses?
:
: Budikka

Gabriel · Guest

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:43:42 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:

: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:07:18 -0400, Gabriel
: <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:29:21 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
: >
: >: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0400, Gabriel
: >: <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: >On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: >: ><budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
: >: >
: >: >: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: >: >: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: >: >: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: >: >: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: >: >: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: >: >: > you wish).
: >: >:
: >: >: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: >: >: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: >: >: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: >: >: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
: >: >
: >: >I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
: >: >unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
: >: >you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
: >: >that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
: >: >[rat]s producing, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
: >: >accumulation of small changes) animals that now are [rat]s. (And
: >: >you can replace [rat] with any animal anyone has ever observed
: >: >alive in the entire recorded history of the human race).
: >: >
: >: >But what is entirely observable, verifiable and testable, and has
: >: >always been for the entire recorded history of the human race?
: >: >That populations of [rat]s only ever produce, over generations,
: >: >more [rat]s. The same is true for every animal alive that you can
: >: >replace for [rat]. This is observable, testable, and verifiable -
: >: >scientific support for what God tells us in His Word: that
: >: >animals only ever produce after their kind.
: >: >
: >: >And the kicker is, even if they induce artificial Speciation,
: >: >[rat]s will still only ever produce [rat]s.
: >:
: >: Please excuse me for interrupting.
: >: I'm just guessing, that you (Gabriel) are asking for observed examples
: >: of a phenomenon that takes a very long time to exhibit a visually
: >: convincing "new animal".
: >: Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof that a 9 trillion one dollar
: >: bills placed in one stack will extend beyond the moon and show me
: >: today?
: >
: >Not even close. We observe bills and we observe that they stack
: >and we know stacking that many is physically impossible at any
: >time ever, rather than it being possible a few billion years ago
: >but not today.
:
: You missed the point, that both demands are impossible.

No, it seems you missed the point. We've observed bills stacking
at all. We've observed how many it takes to get to certain small
heights. We can test that concept, we can verify that concept.
This is in blatant contradiction and a far cry from the fact that
we've never observed any populations of animals that are not
[rat]s producing, over generations, animals that are now [rat]s.
(And you can replace [rat] with any animal you wish). Having not
observed it once, it not being testable or verifiable, it's
wishful thinking at best to compare it to something we can
observe, verify and utterly test: stacking bills and how much
height they take when doing so, and then taking that observable
event to an impossible level. Two completely different things - a
dishonest comparison.

: We can do the
: math and figure out exactly how large the stack would be, but we
: physically can't do it. We have speciation observations, but we do not
: live long enough to observe changes of the magnitude you are
: demanding. We do have fossils that indicate transitions, and we have
: animals and plants right now that demonstrate changes in separated
: groups of the same species. We do not have scientifically recorded
: information by humans far enough in the past to have the extreme
: examples you require as proof.
:
: >
: >What you believe in has never once been observed,
:
: Wrong. You refuse to accept what is accepted by trained experts.

Wrong? Please back up your claims and show where it has ever been
observed that populations of animals that are not [rat]s have
produced, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
accumulation of small changes) animals that are now [rat]s (And
you can replace [rat] with any animal you wish - please show even
*one* such observation). You claim it's observed: well now I'm
challenging you to show such an observation.

Even artificially induced Speciation can only show [rat]s
producing [rat]s, not even close to what evolutionists believe:
that every animal alive has a common ancestor. In other words
that every animal came from, over generations, animals that were
in no way anything like them once upon a time.

:
: >and you want to
: >act like because it's impossible to observe that we should just
: >take your word for it that it just happens.
:
: You demand that (for instance) a rat is turned into a dog. The time it
: takes to do that makes it impossible for us to observe it in our or
: the next dozen generations.

Exactly the point: by their own definition, what they believe in
is not observable, testable or verifiable.

: I am not asking you to take my word for
: anything, you can do your own research, but I'm guessing that you
: refute trained scientists because it doesn't fit your ideology.

It's not science when what they claim is not observable,
verifiable or testable. It's not about ideology, it's about
exposing the dishonesty of claiming something unobservable,
unverifiable and untestable as fact. If that's changed let me
know because on that day God will now become a scientific fact,
since we too have beliefs based on things we see around us, many
of it the same "evidence" you think points to evolution because
you *refuse* to consider the possibility of God.

:
: >Using your logic,
: >then you should take our word for it that God created all the
: >animals, since it must be so because how dare you ask for a
: >phenomenon that happened thousands of years ago that you know we
: >cannot observe. That's the logic you wish to invoke, which is
: >clearly flawed.
:
: No shit sherlock. The difference is that you want to see it go *POOF*
: in front of your eyes when the process takes huge amounts of time.

No, I don't expect to see any such thing. I'm merely pointing out
the obvious which you seem to now be admitting: that what they
believe is in no way observable, is not testable and is not
verifiable.

: As for the logic ploy, show me clinically observed and repeatable
: instances of god creating anything, like create a piece of dust will
: do, we'll keep it simple.

Exactly - we cannot observe that either, it's not verifiable and
it's not testable. Welcome to religion. Yours is called
evolutionism.

: I showed you known examples of speciation, which proves that
: speciation is observable and does happen.

[rat]s producing nothing but [rat]s, ever, over generations. We
already know this happens.

:Speciation is the first
: major step before something can evolve into something much different.

That's where you've created an imagined belief of the origin of
life's diversity that you want to have faith in that's never once
been observed, is not testable and is not verifiable. Welcome to
religion.

: >Not to mention at least we can observe test and
: >verify what God's word also tells us: that [rat]s only ever
: >produce [rat]s. (Replace [rat] with any animal you wish).
:
: In the lifetimes of the writers, and in their realm of knowledge, it
: had to seem like a fact.

It still is a fact, even today, and is completely observable,
verifiable and testable: that over generations [rat]s only ever
produce [rat]s.

:
: >
: >: As I understand it, you are specifically asking for proof of
: >: speciation, yes? A definition of speciation is the formation of new
: >: species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or
: >: behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations
: >: from breeding with each other. OK with that definition?
: >
: >No, because this leads to what we know: that populations of
: >[rat]s will produce, over generations, more [rat]s that might be
: >different but are still clearly rats. We already know this
: >happens. Dogs go through minor changes and we call them a new
: >species of dogs. But they are *still dogs*. Critical point.
:
: Not ok with the definition or not ok that speciation is even relevant?
: Dogs can still breed with other dogs, so that example is not a point
: at all.
:
: >
: >This in no way means it's automatically true that populations
: >that are clearly not [rat]s will produce, over generations
: >(supposedly via mutations and accumulation of small changes)
: >animals that are now [rat]s. Such a bold claim would need to have
: >been observed and has never once been observed.
: >
:
: What you demand requires a time machine. Whatever preceeded rats was
: maybe before homo sapiens.

It requires more than a time machine - it requires your beliefs
to even be true at all. Being unobservable, untestable and
unverifiable, your beliefs are not only not true, but not even
scientific.

But if the 'time machine' logic is all we need, then I guess we
can say God did create everything, and when you ask for such an
observation, the reply becomes "your demand requires a time
machine, hence your demand is unreasonable and stupid, and hence
God is a scientific fact!". But I guess now the logic of that
argument is discarded when it's being used to "validate" a belief
into fact that's no longer your belief..

:
: >: Speciation has been observed.
: >
: >We already know that [mosquitoes] produce different [mosquitoes]
: >that are still [mosquitoes].
:
: If we induce speciation, where the new mosquitoes can not breed with
: the original mosquitos, then we have only the first step. It does
: prove the mechanism.

No, it just proves that life adapts. It doesn't prove that
populations of animals that are not [rat]s will produce, over
generations, animals that are now [rat]s. That's a belief that
has never been observed.

: With separation, and different conditions from
: tha original, small changes will occur repeated many times over a VERY
: long period could indeed produce something unrecognizable as a
: mosquito.
:
: >
: >
: >: Given enough time, these examples should
: >: eventually fulfill the visually convincing new animal criteria you ask
: >: for,
: >
: >This is where you've introduced your imagined, never once
: >observed belief.
:
: I imagined? You are not suggesting that I came up with speciation and
: evolution, right?

Not you - and no, it's evolutionism that's the imagined belief.
Speciation is not even close to the beliefs you imagine to be
true that takes place.

: It's becoming apparent that you are not really
: seeking the truth, you are fighting against it.
:
: >You want to use what you observe, which no one's
: >questioning:
: >
: > ** Speciation ([rat]s producing [rat]s that are still
: > [rat]s but have small changes), animals only producing
: > after their kind, **
:
: It takes too much time for us to observe what you demand.

And you also need a time machine to observe the fact of God. Does
that make God scientific fact now, too? Of course not. But your
obvious intent to be hypocritical in violating the very rules you
use to reject God (you need a time machine in order to be able to
observe Him) in order to claim your beliefs are true shows that
truth is not what you're about - just in getting your religion to
be dishonestly passed off as fact.

How inconvenient that you cannot offer observations or the
ability to test or verify what you claim. You can only complain
when anyone points this out, as if we're now supposed to just
take your word for it that its' fact in spite of being none of
those three qualities. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People
with an open mind on the topic realize this all too well.

:
: >
: >to imply that your *belief* must also be true: that animals that
: >are not [rat]s could, over generations, supposedly via mutations
: >and accumulations of small changes, produce animals that are
: >[rat]s.
:
: Something that didn't look like a rat preceded the rat, and whatever
: it was could not have bred with the rat, then yes, it happened. We do
: have rats and they were not conjured out of thin air or dirt or holy
: dust like *POOF*.

Actually you have no *proof* they were not created by God - just
a god-rejecting determination to make up whatever you want to
make sure no one comes to that conclusion.

:
: >
: >Sorry, but if you want to claim this belief is true, you need an
: >observation of that drastically different phenomenon as well. If
: >you cannot, you merely offer up a belief that is unobservable,
: >unverifiable, and untestable. You want to act like just because
: >the way you define your own beliefs being unobservable that we
: >should ignore it and act like we've observed it; that we should
: >just accept your beliefs that it happened millions of years ago.
: >Sorry it doesn't work that way.
:
: I am not believing in speciation and evolution because I thought it up
: or somebody wrote it up 2k years ago and passed the story down to me
: in meetings and an old book. Even set aside the translation errors and
: forgeries and verbal origins repeated umpteen times.
: I believe in speciation and evolution for much different reasons than
: why you believe what you do. I base my beliefs on what modern science
: builds as a body of knowledge and has repeatably verified and tested.
: Also, when the predictions that this body of knowledge makes is later
: proved correct, it furthers my confidence that we are learning the
: truth about the real world.
: I am not bothered by the mistakes made by scientific endeavors, as
: they are found and corrected in the due progress of the scientific
: method, known as self correcting. I am not bothered by the gaps in the
: scientific knowledge, even the big puzzling ones and the ones that
: theists jump all over to push as proof of their god. It is a fact that
: the god of the gaps is continually in smaller and fewer gaps as we
: answer more and more of the mysteries. I did not define this system
: and I did not imagine anything. I am merely trying to be a rational
: observer of our times, as I suspect you are not.
:
: > If it did work that way, you'd
: >have to take our word for it that God created the animals to
: >produce after their kind because that's all we *ever* observe:
: >that animals *do* only produce after their kind ([rat]s produce
: >[rat]s and so on). Which you'd then correctly say "show us an
: >observation of God doing that". If we were using your logic, we'd
: >say "that's an unfair question: it happened thousands upon
: >thousands of years ago.. Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof
: >that a 9 trillion one dollar bills placed in one stack will
: >extend beyond the moon and show me today." But of course suddenly
: >you'd admit how ridiculous that logic is.
:
: I wrote it, do you think I just might have an inkling how ridiculous
: it was? I was trying to come up with an impossible demand, like you
: have. Show me comparable examples that prove the mechanism or entity
: god exists, as in the examples I gave you of the speciation I was
: talking about.
:
: >
: >
: >: but it would be long after our death. We have tons of
: >: observations supporting speciation, and I think it's safe to say
: >: biologists in general consider it a fact. Also, if you concede micro
: >: evolution you are in fact conceding macro evolution, but I'm assuming
: >: you'll stomp all over that statement. Patience is a virtue.....
: >: Here's a few examples of observed speciation:
: >:
: >: By Chris Stassen
: >: Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four
: >: relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had
: >: documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all
: >: common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the
: >: available examples.
: >:
: >: Example one:
: >:
: >:
: >: Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
: >: male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
: >: strong intra-strain mating preferences.
: >: (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding
: >: affinity.)
: >:
: >: Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created
: >: incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
: >
: >[flies] producing [flies]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
: >populations of [flies] producing animals that are clearly not
: >[flies].
:
: If current observations of speciation mean nothing to you, then go
: here:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
: Much information of transitions in the magnitude you demand.

People look at bones and come to the conclusion that they are not
transitional forms at all. So beliefs created while looking at
bones does not make up for the fact that your beliefs are not
observable, testable or verifiable: they are just beliefs. Just
like someone else who could claim, for example, "all life came
from aliens! look at the fossil record! It tells us so!" - just
as ridiculous.

: If transitions such as from reptiles to first mammals (long) or
: transition from reptiles to first birds is not enough, then I don't
: know what might be. The information that is listed in the contents
: page link above shows something precisely akin to your rats becoming
: other than rats.
:
: >
: >:
: >: Example two:
: >:
: >:
: >: Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the
: >: chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are
: >: generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as
: >: the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you
: >: suggested.)
: >: (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original
: >: stock.)
: >:
: >: Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium
: >: angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
: >
: >[Plants] producing [plants]. Again irrelevant.
:
: Are you demanding that plants become animals before you acknowledge
: this as speciation?
:
: >
: >
: >:
: >: Example three:
: >:
: >:
: >: Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in
: >: less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
: >: (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is
: >: unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the
: >: parent stock.)
: >:
: >: Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
: >: W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
: >
: >[Mice] producing more [mice]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
: >populations of [mice] producing, over generations, animals that
: >are clearly not [mice]. Or animals that are clearly not [mice]
: >producing, over generations, animals that now are [mice].
:
: go to the link above.

Why? The info I just responded to was an observation of [rat]s
producing [rat]s - irrelevant when it comes to the beliefs of
evolutionism.

:
: >
: >:
: >: Example four:
: >:
: >:
: >: Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since
: >: they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock,
: >: Lake Nagubago.
: >: (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural
: >: interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different
: >: coloration. While it might be possible that different species are
: >: inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
: >:
: >: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts,
: >: Harvard University Press. p. 348
: >
: >[fish] producing [fish].
: which cannot breed across the change.
: try:
: fish to sharks, skates, rays
: primitive fish to bony fish
: from fishes to first amphibians
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
: same link
:
: >
: >:
: >: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
: >:
: >:
: >: This is a page with numerous examples of plants:
: >: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
: >:
: >: caio
: >
: >So again, you've only shown [rat]s producing [rat]s. Even
: >artificially induced Speciation cannot show what you believe in:
: >that populations of animals that are not [rat]s will produce,
: >over generations, supposedly via mutations and accumulation of
: >small changes, animals that are now [rat]s.
: >
: >If you have such an observation, please provide it. Because all
: >that belief is: something not observable, not verifiable and not
: >testable: not science. Just a religious belief on how all the
: >different life forms got here.
:
: Interesting that you call me out as having religious beliefs. Why
: would a religious person call a non-religious person religious?
: Besides erroneous, how could that be an insult or point in your favor?
: Is it that I would be making the same kind of mistake that you are but
: it opposes your fallacy so my fallacy is lesser in truth than yours?
: Is that something like how theists do that "my god is better than
: their god" thing?
: You rail against my position as not science, not observable, not
: verifiable, when my position can only be the result of observable
: testable science, because the claims I have all made in this post are
: from scientists who make observations and test and verify all they
: can. It is beyond me why somebody who is clearly unqualified to
: disprove these scientists rants against them. If you have proof that
: destroys any commonly held scientific knowledge, take it to the
: scientific world and make them your bitch. Making impossible demands
: to prove something that is already proven and then stating that your
: demands are the criteria that would prove it is simply weird.
:
: I have no expectation that our conversation will move you to think
: anything differently than what you thought before, and that's your
: business. You will not be able to change mine,

I don't expect to change yours. Just calling you on the dishonest
statements you make so that those who do not know better will
have at least seen the truth behind the lies being told by the
disciples of evolutionism.

: for more than one
: reason, firstly you base your position on something I have no respect
: for, which is myth purported to be fact, and secondly, you oppose
: modern knowledge with no apparent credential to do so, why should I
: trust you who opposes a working system of factual knowledge
: acquisition?
: If you had something to rock the world of science, you wouldn't be
: wasting your time in a newsgroup. Also, if you want to learn, you
: should start somewhere else, there's nutbars in here with wild
: claims..... ;-{}

raven1 · Guest

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:02:05 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:

SkyEyes · Guest

On Jun 6, 2:18 pm, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:

Cary Kittrell · Guest

In article <c0c049dc-7bea-4aa0-861a-0bdb7c3cc6fa@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net> writes:

Cj · Guest

"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote shit which has been snipped.

You have repeatedly asked the "when did you stop beating your wife" question
and any person with knowledge of evolution can readily see that you are full
of shit. Asking a question with only one answer, when you intend to use
that answer to insult or abuse knowledge, is dishonest. You are, like so
many creationists, so accustomed to lying on the internet that it doesn't
bother you a bit. Ethics and morality have obviously never been a strong
part of the creationist creed since they struggle so furiously with educated
people. You will never resolve your ignorance of biology and science
because your lack of knowledge and honesty is willful. You are truly a
disgusting example.
Cj

Gabriel · Guest

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:08:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

: [snips]
:
: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:43:42 +0200, jemcd wrote:
:
: > If we induce speciation, where the new mosquitoes can not breed with the
: > original mosquitos, then we have only the first step.
:
: Oh, we have much more than that.
:
: Assume you can get him to "honest up" enough to admit a speciation
: event. He won't, but assume he does. What does this single event tell
: us? It tells us the following:
:
: 1) A parent population can give rise to a distinct, non-interbreeding
: daughter population

No, a parent population of [mosquitoes] only gives rise to more
[mosquitoes]. Speciation, artificially observed or otherwise,
has never once shown anything even remotely close to what
evolutionism claims: that populations of [mosquitoes] give rise,
over generations (supposedly via mutations and accumulation of
small changes) animals that are now clearly no longer
[mosquitoes].

You seem quite confused, or try to intentionally distort, what
Speciation really is, not to mention all it ever shows.
:
: 2) There exists some mechanism by which such changes can - and do - occur
:
: 3) There is no reason to think such changes will not continue to occur
:
: 4) If such changes continue to occur, the populations are unlikely to
: each encounter the _same_ sets of changes (if they were, why are they not
: interfertile _now_?)
:
: 5) As a result of this, the populations can be expected to diverge more
: over time, short of an extinction event
:
: 6) Lacking a barrier to _how much_ change can be introduced over time,
: there is quite literally no limit to how much they can diverge
:
: 7) No such barrier has ever been hypothesized, let alone demonstrated
:
: Therefore there are only two possible outcomes of this event: extinction
: for one or both, or perpetual differentiation, perpetual accumulation of
: small, subtle changes, but again, different changes for each population.
:
: Which is to say, you've just admitted the entire ball of wax as concerns
: evolution, as a necessary outcome of the very process you've just agreed
: occurred.
:
: Or, more simply, don't expect him to ever admit speciation, even if you
: rub his nose in it.

Gabriel · Guest

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote:

: On Jun 3, 7:30 pm, "Cj" <C...@mist.net> wrote:
: > "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:at3b44h0f4cdglaofa9a1lo568vcm0o97h@4ax.com...
: >
: > > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:29:21 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
: >
: > > : On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0400, Gabriel
: > > : <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > > :
: > > : >On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: > > : ><budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
: > > : >
: > > : >: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > > : >: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: > > : >: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: > > : >: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: > > : >: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: > > : >: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: > > : >: > you wish).
: > > : >:
: > > : >: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: > > : >: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: > > : >: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: > > : >: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
: > > : >
: > > : >I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
: > > : >unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
: > > : >you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
: > > : >that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
: > > : >[rat]s producing, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
: > > : >accumulation of small changes) animals that now are [rat]s. (And
: > > : >you can replace [rat] with any animal anyone has ever observed
: > > : >alive in the entire recorded history of the human race).
: > > : >
: > > : >But what is entirely observable, verifiable and testable, and has
: > > : >always been for the entire recorded history of the human race?
: > > : >That populations of [rat]s only ever produce, over generations,
: > > : >more [rat]s. The same is true for every animal alive that you can
: > > : >replace for [rat]. This is observable, testable, and verifiable -
: > > : >scientific support for what God tells us in His Word: that
: > > : >animals only ever produce after their kind.
: > > : >
: > > : >And the kicker is, even if they induce artificial Speciation,
: > > : >[rat]s will still only ever produce [rat]s.
: > > :
: > > : Please excuse me for interrupting.
: > > : I'm just guessing, that you (Gabriel) are asking for observed examples
: > > : of a phenomenon that takes a very long time to exhibit a visually
: > > : convincing "new animal".
: > > : Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof that a 9 trillion one dollar
: > > : bills placed in one stack will extend beyond the moon and show me
: > > : today?
: >
: > > Not even close. We observe bills and we observe that they stack
: > > and we know stacking that many is physically impossible at any
: > > time ever, rather than it being possible a few billion years ago
: > > but not today.
: >
: > > What you believe in has never once been observed, and you want to
: > > act like because it's impossible to observe that we should just
: > > take your word for it that it just happens. Using your logic,
: > > then you should take our word for it that God created all the
: > > animals, since it must be so because how dare you ask for a
: > > phenomenon that happened thousands of years ago that you know we
: > > cannot observe. That's the logic you wish to invoke, which is
: > > clearly flawed. Not to mention at least we can observe test and
: > > verify what God's word also tells us: that [rat]s only ever
: > > produce [rat]s. (Replace [rat] with any animal you wish).
: >
: > > : As I understand it, you are specifically asking for proof of
: > > : speciation, yes? A definition of speciation is the formation of new
: > > : species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or
: > > : behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations
: > > : from breeding with each other. OK with that definition?
: >
: > > No, because this leads to what we know: that populations of
: > > [rat]s will produce, over generations, more [rat]s that might be
: > > different but are still clearly rats. We already know this
: > > happens. Dogs go through minor changes and we call them a new
: > > species of dogs. But they are *still dogs*. Critical point.
: >
: > > This in no way means it's automatically true that populations
: > > that are clearly not [rat]s will produce, over generations
: > > (supposedly via mutations and accumulation of small changes)
: > > animals that are now [rat]s. Such a bold claim would need to have
: > > been observed and has never once been observed.
: >
: > > : Speciation has been observed.
: >
: > > We already know that [mosquitoes] produce different [mosquitoes]
: > > that are still [mosquitoes].
: >
: > > : Given enough time, these examples should
: > > : eventually fulfill the visually convincing new animal criteria you ask
: > > : for,
: >
: > > This is where you've introduced your imagined, never once
: > > observed belief. You want to use what you observe, which no one's
: > > questioning:
: >
: > > ** Speciation ([rat]s producing [rat]s that are still
: > > [rat]s but have small changes), animals only producing
: > > after their kind, **
: >
: > > to imply that your *belief* must also be true: that animals that
: > > are not [rat]s could, over generations, supposedly via mutations
: > > and accumulations of small changes, produce animals that are
: > > [rat]s.
: >
: > > Sorry, but if you want to claim this belief is true, you need an
: > > observation of that drastically different phenomenon as well. If
: > > you cannot, you merely offer up a belief that is unobservable,
: > > unverifiable, and untestable. You want to act like just because
: > > the way you define your own beliefs being unobservable that we
: > > should ignore it and act like we've observed it; that we should
: > > just accept your beliefs that it happened millions of years ago.
: > > Sorry it doesn't work that way. If it did work that way, you'd
: > > have to take our word for it that God created the animals to
: > > produce after their kind because that's all we *ever* observe:
: > > that animals *do* only produce after their kind ([rat]s produce
: > > [rat]s and so on). Which you'd then correctly say "show us an
: > > observation of God doing that". If we were using your logic, we'd
: > > say "that's an unfair question: it happened thousands upon
: > > thousands of years ago.. Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof
: > > that a 9 trillion one dollar bills placed in one stack will
: > > extend beyond the moon and show me today." But of course suddenly
: > > you'd admit how ridiculous that logic is.
: >
: > > : but it would be long after our death. We have tons of
: > > : observations supporting speciation, and I think it's safe to say
: > > : biologists in general consider it a fact. Also, if you concede micro
: > > : evolution you are in fact conceding macro evolution, but I'm assuming
: > > : you'll stomp all over that statement. Patience is a virtue.....
: > > : Here's a few examples of observed speciation:
: > > :
: > > : By Chris Stassen
: > > : Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four
: > > : relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had
: > > : documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all
: > > : common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the
: > > : available examples.
: > > :
: > > : Example one:
: > > :
: > > :
: > > : Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
: > > : male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
: > > : strong intra-strain mating preferences.
: > > : (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding
: > > : affinity.)
: > > :
: > > : Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created
: > > : incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
: >
: > > [flies] producing [flies]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
: > > populations of [flies] producing animals that are clearly not
: > > [flies].
: >
: > > :
: > > : Example two:
: > > :
: > > :
: > > : Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the
: > > : chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are
: > > : generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as
: > > : the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you
: > > : suggested.)
: > > : (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original
: > > : stock.)
: > > :
: > > : Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium
: > > : angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
: >
: > > [Plants] producing [plants]. Again irrelevant.
: >
: > > :
: > > : Example three:
: > > :
: > > :
: > > : Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in
: > > : less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
: > > : (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is
: > > : unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the
: > > : parent stock.)
: > > :
: > > : Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
: > > : W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
: >
: > > [Mice] producing more [mice]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
: > > populations of [mice] producing, over generations, animals that
: > > are clearly not [mice]. Or animals that are clearly not [mice]
: > > producing, over generations, animals that now are [mice].
: >
: > > :
: > > : Example four:
: > > :
: > > :
: > > : Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since
: > > : they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock,
: > > : Lake Nagubago.
: > > : (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural
: > > : interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different
: > > : coloration. While it might be possible that different species are
: > > : inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
: > > :
: > > : Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts,
: > > : Harvard University Press. p. 348
: >
: > > [fish] producing [fish].
: >
: > > :
: > > :http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
: > > :
: > > :
: > > : This is a page with numerous examples of plants:
: > > :http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
: > > :
: > > : caio
: >
: > > So again, you've only shown [rat]s producing [rat]s. Even
: > > artificially induced Speciation cannot show what you believe in:
: > > that populations of animals that are not [rat]s will produce,
: > > over generations, supposedly via mutations and accumulation of
: > > small changes, animals that are now [rat]s.
: >
: > > If you have such an observation, please provide it. Because all
: > > that belief is: something not observable, not verifiable and not
: > > testable: not science. Just a religious belief on how all the
: > > different life forms got here.
: >
: > Wow! Are you stupid! You apparently cannot understand what you read so you
: > repeat your ignorant mantras. There's no reason for any intelligent
: > individual to waste time responding to your shit. You are obviously a
: > moron!
: > Cj
:
: Everything Gabriel has said makes perfect sense. Your reaction simply
: indicates anger caused by the inability to respond to each point
: logically.

Bingo.

But the good news is they are a great testimony against
evolutionism every time they behave in such an illogical, hateful
way.

:
: Ray

Cj · Guest

"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rqti44hb5mtmr95jvjedirlj9rii53cji4@4ax.com...

1st Century Apostolic Tra · Guest

z
"Cj" <Cj@mist.net> wrote in message
news:W-udnfoUHNTODdTVnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@gwi.net...

John Baker · Guest

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:02:05 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:

Cory Albrecht · Guest

Gabriel wrote:

John Smith · Guest

"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rqti44hb5mtmr95jvjedirlj9rii53cji4@4ax.com...

Gregory A Greenman · Guest

In article <g2cdjm$gnq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> declared...