|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gregory A Greenman
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
 |
|
In article <4omr44d3jf1aikuhlbbq1mqpqmhenbh4ji@4ax.com>, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> declared...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:33:20 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:
: You are as bad and dishonest as Christ's Love.
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?
|
Huh? I haven't seen any posts by Christ's Love for a few days,
but I had no idea he was crucified. Also, I'm pretty sure he was
telling lies on par with Gabriel's so, that means he wasn't
sinless. If he was willing to be crucified he's an idiot. Why
didn't I hear about this on the news? Did he get crucified in the
Philippines?
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
|
How can you explain something when you contradict yourself?
| Quote: |
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
|
And what evidence for God would that be?
| Quote: |
fact. We don't. This is where you become dishonest with your
|
"We"? As in creationists? Then if "you" are not trying to claim that
your creationist views are science, when why are "you" trying to get
creationism taught in science class in schools?
| Quote: |
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.
|
As has been pointed out to you many, many times, evolution is
observable, testable and verifiable.
It is observable in the London Undeground Mosquito, in the Kew Primrose,
in Goatsbeard plants, in the Peppered Moth and many other instances.
It is testable because we can make predictions like we should find a
fossil of a certain type in a certain location in strata of a certain
age, and that is exactly what was done for Tiktaalik and Ambulocetus.
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human
ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil
and genetic evidence. Evolution predicts that different sets of
character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has
been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with
different protein sequences.
And the successful fulfillment of those prediction is nothing less than
the verification of evolution.
Also, if you want to trash the theory of evolution because you feel it
it is "belief", then you need to trash Christianity because it is only
belief, too. When will you start denying Christianity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: See Gabriel. See Gabriel Trip Over his Big Mouth. See Gabr |
|
|
On Jun 9, 8:44 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:08:02 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: raven1 wrote:
: > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:02:05 -0400, Gabriel: > <gabriel_bapt...@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.
|
Post your evidence right here. Let's all look at it.
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
[snips]
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:42:41 -0400, Cory Albrecht wrote:
| Quote: |
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gabriel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:27:05 -0400, Mike
<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.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].
:
: No, a parent population of [Culex pipiens] gave rise to [non-Culex pipiens].
First of all, they *believe* they came from each other - they
don't know that they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culex_molestus
"It is **thought** to have evolved from the overground species
Culex pipiens in the last few decades"
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
"The insects are **believed** to be the descendants of mosquitoes
which colonised the tunnels a hundred years ago when the Tube was
being dug."
Secondly, they are both mosquitoes. Just like a collie and a
golden retriever are both dogs.
So again, show observations of populations of animals that are
not [mosquitoes] producing, over generations, animals that are
now [mosquitoes].
: Show where it's ever been observed that
:
: 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].
:
: Populations of [Culex pipiens] gave rise, over generations (supposedly
: via mutations and accumulation of small changes) animals that are now
: clearly no longer [Culex pipiens].
:
: You said to fill in the [] with whatever animal we wanted.
And so of course you'd fill it in with two animals that are, for
example, both dogs, or both mosquitoes, and claim victory. Why
must you by like so many other evolutionists and resort to
dishonesty to argue your point if you're so sure what you believe
in is true (that shouldn't need such dishonesty for it's
defense)?
: Someone did
: so. Live with it and quit trying to move the goalposts after the game is
: over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:27:05 -0400, Mike
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.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].
:
: No, a parent population of [Culex pipiens] gave rise to [non-Culex pipiens].
First of all, they *believe* they came from each other - they
don't know that they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culex_molestus
"It is **thought** to have evolved from the overground species
Culex pipiens in the last few decades"
|
Like I told you before, Wikipedia is a secondary source, and the *the*
primary source for the London Underground Mosquito is referenced in that
Wikipedia article. Why is it that you never go to the primary source
which addresses the genetic relationship between LUM and teh aboveground
Culex pipiens?
| Quote: |
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
"The insects are **believed** to be the descendants of mosquitoes
which colonised the tunnels a hundred years ago when the Tube was
being dug."
|
Like I told you before, that is an article from a daily news paper, not
a science journal. So-called "science journalists" rarely have any
science education beyond high school.
Also, this London Times article is one year *older* than that Byrne and
Nichols paper in Heredity in which they report upon their findings which
included genetic analyses.
Why is it that you never seem to go to that Byrne and Nichols paper,
Gabriel?
| Quote: |
Secondly, they are both mosquitoes. Just like a collie and a
golden retriever are both dogs.
|
Except a collie and a golden retriever can breed with each other. The
London Underground Mosquito cannot breed with aboveground Culex pipiens.
I note, yet again, that inability to interbreed was *your* diagnostic
test on how to tell a [rat] from [clearly not a rat].
/*** 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 ***/
| Quote: |
So again, show observations of populations of animals that are
not [mosquitoes] producing, over generations, animals that are
now [mosquitoes].
: Show where it's ever been observed that
:
: 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].
:
: Populations of [Culex pipiens] gave rise, over generations (supposedly
: via mutations and accumulation of small changes) animals that are now
: clearly no longer [Culex pipiens].
:
: You said to fill in the [] with whatever animal we wanted.
And so of course you'd fill it in with two animals that are, for
example, both dogs, or both mosquitoes, and claim victory. Why
must you by like so many other evolutionists and resort to
dishonesty to argue your point if you're so sure what you believe
in is true (that shouldn't need such dishonesty for it's
defense)?
|
If one shouldn't need dishonesty for defense, why do you do shift goal
posts? The 6 examples of speciation I gave you all show you to be wrong.
Different breeds of dogs can interbreed, the London Underground Mosquito
*cannot* interbreed with it's aboveground Culex pipiens cousins.
| Quote: |
: Someone did
: so. Live with it and quit trying to move the goalposts after the game is
: over. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Meet Jack the Moron |
|
|
On Jun 16, 6:18 am, "Jack the Riddler" <riddles...@yahooooo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......you evolved from a banana!
|
Jack the Moron pulls this "fact" out of his profoundly dumb ass and
draws the inevitable creationist "conclusion".
Even if he could support this claim with an actual source reference
(which he evidently cannot otherwise, we presume, he would have right
here), and even if it were true, what would it actually mean? That
the evolutionists have been right all along.
There's no reason whatsoever for a divine and loving god to use
anything from a banana in a specially-created human.
The fact that we do share some DNA, pretty much all five standard RNA/
DNA base pairs and some 20 amino acids, that we can medically swap
genes with other organisms almost at will, is ever more proof that we
do indeed share a common ancestor - not with a banana, but with a
banana's long distant ancestor.
I'm sorry that idiots like Jack the Moron cannot grasp this, because
if, somewhere wa-ay back invisibly down the line, there ever were a
god who began it all, then Jack-Off has just denied his god! LoL!
That's what makes him a moron.
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: Pastor Dave Continues His Knee-Bent Running Away |
|
|
On Jun 16, 11:32 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:18:40 -0400, "Jack the Riddler"
riddles...@yahooooo.com> spake thusly:
You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......
you evolved from a banana!
It was Darwin's goal to try to prove that humans
and bananas came form the same place. :)
People do not realize this, when they claim that
evolution did it. They talk about chimps, but
don't realize that they're also saying that they
are related to bananas. 
|
Rather a banana than a complete asshole.
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: An Education For the Creationist Species |
|
|
On Jun 16, 12:25 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 16 Jun, 18:32, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:18:40 -0400, "Jack the Riddler"
riddles...@yahooooo.com> spake thusly:
You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......
you evolved from a banana!
It was Darwin's goal to try to prove that humans
and bananas came form the same place. :)
People do not realize this, when they claim that
evolution did it. They talk about chimps, but
don't realize that they're also saying that they
are related to bananas. :)
Ananas is Dutch for pineapple. Are you related?
Wombat
|
It's not Ananas. It's just An Ass!
Although why he insists on proving it over and over at regular
intervals is mystery.
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Locke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: Re: An Education For the Creationist Species |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:18:40 -0400, "Jack the Riddler"
<riddles4ya@yahooooo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......you evolved from a banana!
FYI: |
Those first bananas that people knew in antiquity were not sweet like
the bananas we know today, but were cooking bananas or plantain
bananas with a starchy taste and composition. The bright yellow
bananas that we know today were discovered as a mutation from the
plantain banana by a Jamaican, Jean Francois Poujot, in the year 1836.
He found this hybrid mutation growing in his banana tree plantation
with a sweet flavor and a yellow color-instead of green or red, and
not requiring cooking like the plantain banana. The rapid
establishment of this new exotic fruit was welcomed worldwide, and it
was massively grown for world markets.
"There is not enough love and kindness in the world
to give any of it away to imaginary beings." - Friederich Nietzsche |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: Re: An Education For the Creationist Species |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:18:40 -0400, "Jack the Riddler"
<riddles4ya@yahooooo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......you evolved from a banana!
|
Feces are composed mainly of bacteria and water - bacteria with which
you also share approximately 25% of your DNA. You evolved from a piece
of shit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ben Kaufman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:10 am Post subject: Re: An Education For the Creationist Species |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:25:49 -0400, Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:18:40 -0400, "Jack the Riddler"
riddles4ya@yahooooo.com> spake thusly:
You share 25% of your DNA with a banana......
you evolved from a banana!
It was Darwin's goal to try to prove that humans
and bananas came form the same place. :)
People do not realize this, when they claim that
evolution did it. They talk about chimps, but
don't realize that they're also saying that they
are related to bananas. :)
Is there something wrong with being related to a banana? Or a chimp, for
that matter?
|
Only if it conflicts with the heart of one's belief system, which if pulled out
from underneath one will cause psychotic episodes.
Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gabriel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: Re: The Twelve Lies of Gabriel - Lie #9 |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budikka1@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.
:
: But can he define what is a rat at the genomic level? No! How then
: can he determine that something is no longer a rat if he cannot define
: when something *is* a rat - at the genomic level?
:
: That's why his question is bullshit.
:
: Evolution doesn't happen at the level of cuddly animals in childhood
: picture books. it happens in populations in the genome.
:
: He evidently never saw pictures of viruses, bacteria, exotic plants,
: or fungi as a child so he cannot handle these "types"!
:
: It's got to be an animal because in Gabriel World(TM) evolution only
: affects animals. He wouldn't even discuss a rat v. mouse scenario
: with which I presented him. That's how dishonest, cowardly,
: hypocritical and intransigent the Child Gabriel is. Dishonest to the
: core.
:
: I've repeatedly tried to get him to discuss all of these problems with
: his question but he flat refuses any discussion. All he can do is
: spastically chant his mantra which is his idiotic meaningless question
: - a question which demonstrates nothing but Gabriel's ignorance and
: stupidity.
:
: 9. " (And you can replace [rat] with any animal you wish)."
:
: No you cannot as I've proven, because as soon as you try, he makes
: another excuse or he changes the entire question
:
: That's LIE #9
:
: Clearly we can see from Gabriel's behavior that *he himself is a rat*!
:
: Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Gabriel Still Running From Lie #9 |
|
|
On Jun 16, 11:40 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
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. Define it at the
genomic level. It ought to be the easiest thing in the world if a rat
is a specially created "type" that has no relationship with other
"types" and which cannot change into another "type".
Why are you running from such a simple little definition? It ought to
be easy for a god like you. So why it is that you're SCARED TO DEATH
of getting down to the genomic level if everything is so simple and
easy and Oh-So-Hunky-Dory?
Is it because you know your cowardly LYING ass will be whipped raw the
minute you take one step away from your kindergarten "definition" -
the one you learned about those cute fluffy animals from those nice
thick cardboard pages in the picture books at your mother's knee - and
other low joints?
When you've defined a rat at the genomic level, please identify for us
the mechanism which snaps into place as soon as the genome is in
danger of tripping over into a different "type" will you Gallus
Gabbers?
We're so enthralled with your lofty and astounding intellect. Please
enlighten us miserable sinning evolutionists who simply aren't up to
your god-like prowess with genetics and microbiology.
BTW. here are the LIES from which you're still running:
#1 - http://tinyurl.com/6rsdrv
#2 - http://tinyurl.com/5zl5b8
#3 - http://tinyurl.com/5vf836
#4 - http://tinyurl.com/68bmab
#5 - http://tinyurl.com/6ra6yz
#6 - http://tinyurl.com/6eg39k
#7 - http://tinyurl.com/68bmab
#8 - http://tinyurl.com/6yk6bo
#9 - http://tinyurl.com/5gnbyc
#10 - http://tinyurl.com/5wrgaa
#11 - http://tinyurl.com/6g69jc
#12 - http://tinyurl.com/6kyv64
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: See Gabriel Prove Himself a Hypocrite! |
|
|
On Jun 17, 9:25 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:57:26 -0400, "Cj" <C...@mist.net> wrote:
: "> Gabriel wrote:
: > 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 are, of course, absolutely wrong. 1. Speciation has been observed in
: mosquitoes as well as many other genera.
Speciation is mosquitoes producing mosquitoes, not mosquitoes
producing animals that are no longer mosquitoes. Critical
difference.
|
So why give them a different name? Why "pretend" they're different?
They're still mosquitoes. Why not just label all things that fly and
have six legs and a long proboscis as "mosquitoes"?
How do you tell when it's *not* a mosquito, Gallus Gabriel? What is
it at the genomic level which says "on this side it's the mosquito
'type' on that side it's some other 'type'".
Can you tell us?
If not, you're a pathetic HYPOCRITE to pretend you can tell one "type"
from another or pretend it's so "easy" to define a "type".
Let's see if you can, shall we?
My prediction:
Gallus Gabriel will run from this challenge like a chicken, like he's
RUN AWAY from every other challenge, making every excuse he can think
of to avoid addressing it whilst claiming it's already been fully
addressed.
Budikka |
|
| 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
