Science Talk

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 17, 12:22 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snipped previous]

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 17, 12:23 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[rest snipped]

John Smith · Guest

"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rsef545lfrrh8tdbq1l480489jq9t2ormu@4ax.com...

John Baker · Guest

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:02:01 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ye Old One · Guest

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:22:33 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 19, 7:22 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 19, 7:24 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Beck · Guest

In article <r2uk54t9n7s3dqiujndlmr62pl6qa03fn9@4ax.com>,
usenet@mcsuk.net says...

Gabriel · Guest

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?

: 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

Tokay Pino Gris · Guest

Gabriel wrote:

Cory Albrecht · Guest

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

Tokay Pino Gris · Guest

Cory Albrecht wrote:

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 19, 10:28 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gabriel · Guest

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:42:40 GMT, "John Smith"
<bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote:

:
: "Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:rsef545lfrrh8tdbq1l480489jq9t2ormu@4ax.com...
: > On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:00:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
: > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : [snips]
: > :
: > : On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:46:50 -0400, Gabriel wrote:
: > :
: > : > Court cases about things that are possible, things have been witnessed
: > : > countless times: murders, thefts, and so on, are a far cry from
: > : > something you believe took place supposedly for billions of years that
: > : > not one person has ever witnessed in the entire recorded history of
: > the
: > : > human race. A critical difference you try to gloss over.
: > :
: > : I know this is about like trying to teach a tapir to tap dance, but I'm
: > : going to try explain this to you.
: > :
: > : You say court cases about things that have been witnessed countless
: > times
: > : - murders and the like - are different from [x]. So far so good, but we
: > : need to be clear what. exactly, [x] *is* in order to see if your point
: > is
: > : correct.
: > :
: > : Given your previous comments, it would appear that [x] is "something - a
: > : rat, say - changing into something else - a non-rat." Since you won't
: > : define "rat" and "non-rat" in meaningful terms, this already poses a
: > : difficulty, but we'll assume, for sake of discussion, you're only
: > : interested in some sort of gross morphological change.
: > :
: > : So your contention, then, is that cases about, say, murder differ from
: > : gross morphological change, because murders are, in essence, a "known
: > : event" and therefore we have something of a "baseline" of information
: > : about them - we know how they work, we know what to look for, we can use
: > : previous known examples to make reasoned determinations about current
: > : cases.
: > :
: > : Indeed, this is largely the point to forensics; from what is possible,
: > : and what evidence is available, to determine what most likely occurred.
: > : If one finds .22 shell casings on the floor and .22 slugs in the body,
: > : one can infer, with some confidence, the victim was killed by a .22
: > : caliber weapon, rather than a shotgun or being trampled to death by
: > : elephants.
: >
: > We observe, can test, and can verify that it's possible for a
: > person to kill another person with a gun. Knowing it's possible,
: > now it makes sense to look at reasons on why you think such an
: > observable, testable and verifiable event might have taken place
: > yet again by a specific individual.
: >
: > Contrast this with what has never been observed taking place,
: > that you cannot test that it actually ever takes place, that no
: > one can verify that it actually takes place: reasons why you
: > think it might have taken place is useless when the physical
: > thing you are in court to show might have taken place cannot even
: > be shown to be possible because no one has ever observed such a
: > thing, no one has ever been able to show a test where such a
: > thing is possible, no one has ever been able to verify such a
: > thing.
:
: Using your own, invented and fraudulent, criteria only supports the
: contention that you do not have a leg to stand on.
:
: Your stupidity demands than unless there was an observer for ANY even (or
: something sijmilar to that event) - it didn't happen.
: That's nothing more than psychotic bull shit!
:
:
:
: Your reasons become nonsense because *what* your claiming
: > these reasons point or implicate are of something never once
: > observed, not testable and not verifiable of being physically
: > possible.
:
: All those assertions about past events ARE testable and verifiable!
: Your ignorance of such, blindness, does not mean it isn't there.
:
:
:
:
: Case thrown out of court until you show it being
: > physically possible via observations and being testable and being
: > verifiable, then they'll look at your reasons why you think it
: > occurred in specific cases.
:
: Science does that ALL the time.
: You just prefer to live in as much ignorance as possible.
:

No, science says "this is what we *believe might* be the case"
when they postulate about something they cannot observe, verify
or test on it being true. Evolutionists, on the otherhand, say
dishonest things like "this is undeniable fact" in spite of their
beliefs being unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Sad

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 22, 2:23 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snipped previous]