Science Talk

Ben Goren · Guest

Cory Albrecht wrote:

Cory Albrecht · Guest

Ben Goren wrote:

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 5, 6:44 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Beck · Guest

In article <fs4r44d8969v8i2drhuv6pq2747lm9oerg@4ax.com>,
gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com says...

Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA · Guest

On Jun 10, 6:24 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

raven1 · Guest

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:46:40 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA · Guest

On Jun 10, 12:03 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gabriel · Guest

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:33:20 -0400, Cory Albrecht
<coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:

: Gabriel wrote:
: > 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:
: > : > 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.
:
: What wacky definitions of "observable", "testable" and "verifiable are
: you using now, Gabriel?
:
: Because if you have evidence for $something, that means that $something
: is therefor verifiable.

No, you have *beliefs* of what you think that evidence tells you.
Quite a different manner.

Others have quite different beliefs looking at the same evidence
you get your beliefs from. Does that mean their beliefs are
verifiable as well? Of course not.

:
: I also note the hypocrisy of you saying that God is "unobservable,
: untestable and unverifiable" and you still believe in God yet you
: require direct eyeball-to-subject observation and verification before
: you will accept evolution.
:
: You are as bad and dishonest as Christ's Love.

You have it wrong. I believe in God. I do not believe in
evolution. I point out that evolution is just a belief (just like
God is). You claim evolution is a fact. To show this is not true,
I correctly point out that it's not fact, clearly shown by the
fact that what you believe is also not observable, not testable
and not verifiable.

And what, exactly, do you think is dishonest about Christ's love?
Was it the part where He, as a sinless man, willingly suffered
and died on the cross for your sins, for all our sins, while we
were yet sinners and hated God?

Gabriel · Guest

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:08:02 -0400, Cory Albrecht
<coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:

: raven1 wrote:
: > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:02:05 -0400, Gabriel
: > <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: >> 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.
: >
: > Again, such as?
: >
: > I'll cut to the chase. What, specifically, do you consider the best
: > arguments for the Biblical creation account? Not complaints against
: > evolution, the BBT, et al, what *positive evidence* do you have *for*
: > your specific position.
:
: Don;t you just love how first Gabriel says that God creating the world
: is unobservable, untestable and unverifiable, but then goes on to
: contradict himself by stating that there is evidence for it?

No, I'm showing that doing so is exactly what you do. Let me
explain.

You have beliefs, and you get those beliefs from looking at
evidence. We have belief in God. And we get that belief from
looking at evidence. You try to claim your beliefs are scientific
fact. We don't. This is where you become dishonest with your
religious beliefs, and that is why it needs to be pointed out
that what you belief has never been observed, is not testable and
is not verifiable.

Gabriel · Guest

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:00:13 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

: [snips]
:
: On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:47:28 -0400, Gabriel wrote:
:
: > : 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].
:
: I see you're not even honest enough to deal with *one single sentence*
: without introducing yet more lies. I didn't say that the daughter
: population would be anything other than "mosquitoes", did I?

So you don't believe in the beliefs evolutionism anymore than? Of
course you still do - and it's your beliefs that state that
eventually populations of [mosquitoes] will also end up producing
things that are no longer [mosquitoes]. This is pointed out
because you're using this concept of "distinct, non-interbreeding
daughter populations" to try to act like your beliefs in
evolutionism are fact.

But your ability to obfuscate the truth remains obvious. :-(

: No, I
: didn't - yet your refutation is only applicable if I in fact said this.
:
: Why do you feel it necessary to lie so much? Is your faith so feeble you
: can't maintain it without such dishonesty?
:
: Oh, wait, you're a theist - which, based on evidence available thus far,
: means you are by definition dishonest.

Gabriel · Guest

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:30:20 -0400, "Cj" <Cj@mist.net> wrote:

: "Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:rqti44hb5mtmr95jvjedirlj9rii53cji4@4ax.com...
: > 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].
:
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~
: That's speciation you moron! Speciation is observed and has been many many
: times.
: The speciation of mosquitoes has been observed and is well documented. You
: are a typical creationist liar.
: Cj
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~

You seem confused. The only examples of Speciation ever observed
is where [mosquitoes] produc only more [mosquitoes].

But since you have now lied and claimed it's been observed where
populations of [mosquitoes] give rise, over generations
(supposedly via mutations and/or accumulation of small changes)
animals that are now clearly no longer [moquitoes], please show
where this has ever been observed.

The fact is you are now lying - such a thing has never been
observed, no matter what animal you use, not just [mosquitoes].
You can prove me wrong by showing such an observation.

: >
: > 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 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:23:17 -0400, Cory Albrecht
<coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:

: Gabriel wrote:
: > 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].
:
: Eh, wot's this? "Speciation, artificially observed or otherwise"? So now
: you're going to admit that speciation has happened yet still deny that
: evolution happens?

Speciation: populations of [mosquitoes] producing [mosquitoes].
Beliefs of evolutionism: populations of [mosquitoes] will also
produce animals that are no longer [mosquitoes]. That has never
been observed. If you want to claim otherwise, show such an
observation.

:
: GOALPOST SHIFTING!!
:
: Hypocrite.

Free Lunch · Guest

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:02:04 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Free Lunch · Guest

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:07:24 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Free Lunch · Guest

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:41:57 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism: