Science Talk

Budikka666 · Guest

The June 2008 _Scientific American_ has an article by Carl Zimmer.
whose blog is at:
www.scienceblogs.com/loom
under the title of "What is a species?".

At that same blog site, John Wilkins discourses upon species at length
here:
http://tinyurl.com/3es8zh

The article is about a real controversy in evolution - not the
bullshit controversy that creationists and IDiot designers LIE about
but a real controversy about what, exactly, is a species. According
to Zimmer, there are at least 26 published concepts in circulation, of
what a species is.

The funny thing is that the article is also a direct refutation of
special creation. The fact that species is such a fluid concept is a
denies special creation and so-called intelligent so-called design,
and it's rooted deeply in the fact of evolution.

If the con-artist who fooled people into thinking he was Moses - you
know the one who had a big hand in purloining and reinventing Genesis
- hadn't LIED that some deity directly created scientifically
undefined but immutable "kinds" - the Bible might have gotten away
with it.

If what the Bible tells me so were actually true, it would mean there
could be no such thing as speciation. But the Bible indicates that
"kind" is in fact, species and we know for a fact that there is
speciation. One "type" has changed into something clearly of a
different "type" directly under the observation of human beings.

This proves two things: Evolution is a fact and the Bible starts out
with a big, fat, LIE.

Any creationist who disagrees is welcome to bring their positive
scientific evidence for creation right here and debate it with me.

But let me present you with this guarantee: No creationist can or
will. Instead, what they will do is bring the most transparent and
juvenile WHINING imaginable. Just sit back and watch how pathetic and
vacuous they are - all of them!

Budikka

IlBeBauck@gmail.com · Guest

On May 28, 4:54 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

Budikka666 · Guest

On May 28, 5:22 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:

sleepykit · Guest

On May 28, 4:22 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ken · Guest

On May 28, 3:22 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Father Haskell · Guest

On May 28, 6:22 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ · Guest

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason · Guest

[snips]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 15:22:30 -0700, IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

Uncle Vic · Guest

One fine day in alt.atheism, "IlBeBauck@gmail.com" <IlBeBauck@gmail.com>
wrote:

John Locke · Guest

On Wed, 28 May 2008 15:22:30 -0700 (PDT), "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"
<IlBeBauck@gmail.com> wrote:

johac · Guest

In article
<fdbb3fcb-599f-49c0-b78b-e1d8d60cb6a1@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBeBauck@gmail.com" <IlBeBauck@gmail.com> wrote:

Budikka666 · Guest

On May 28, 9:00 pm, John Locke <johnlocke98...@comcast.net> wrote:

Gabriel · Guest

On Wed, 28 May 2008 14:54:00 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

: The June 2008 _Scientific American_ has an article by Carl Zimmer.
: whose blog is at:
: www.scienceblogs.com/loom
: under the title of "What is a species?".
:
: At that same blog site, John Wilkins discourses upon species at length
: here:
: http://tinyurl.com/3es8zh
:
: The article is about a real controversy in evolution - not the
: bullshit controversy that creationists and IDiot designers LIE about
: but a real controversy about what, exactly, is a species. According
: to Zimmer, there are at least 26 published concepts in circulation, of
: what a species is.
:
: The funny thing is that the article is also a direct refutation of
: special creation. The fact that species is such a fluid concept is a
: denies special creation and so-called intelligent so-called design,
: and it's rooted deeply in the fact of evolution.
:
: If the con-artist who fooled people into thinking he was Moses - you
: know the one who had a big hand in purloining and reinventing Genesis
: - hadn't LIED that some deity directly created scientifically
: undefined but immutable "kinds" - the Bible might have gotten away
: with it.
:
: If what the Bible tells me so were actually true, it would mean there
: could be no such thing as speciation. But the Bible indicates that
: "kind" is in fact, species and we know for a fact that there is
: speciation. One "type" has changed into something clearly of a
: different "type" directly under the observation of human beings.
:
: This proves two things: Evolution is a fact and the Bible starts out
: with a big, fat, LIE.
:
: Any creationist who disagrees is welcome to bring their positive
: scientific evidence for creation right here and debate it with me.
:
: But let me present you with this guarantee: No creationist can or
: will. Instead, what they will do is bring the most transparent and
: juvenile WHINING imaginable. Just sit back and watch how pathetic and
: vacuous they are - all of them!
:
: Budikka

You've been shown this before, and always insult people to death
who refute what you claim. Here it is again that which utterly
exposes evolutionism as nothing more than an atheistic religion
on how the different life forms got here, as it's certainly not
observable, testable or verifiable. This time I'll put [giraffe]
in there, but you can put any animal you wish everywhere you see
[giraffe]:

Show a single observation of populations of [giraffe]s producing
an animal, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
accumulation of small changes) that is clearly no longer a
[giraffe]. Or if you prefer, show a single observation of
populations of something that is clearly not a [giraffe]
producing an animal, over generations (supposedly via mutations
and accumulation of small changes) that is [giraffe]. And you
don't have to use [giraffe] - you can pick any animal you want
and replace it in the above sentences, and it remains a fact that
there's no such observation in the entire recorded history of the
human race. Pick any animal you want: show such an observation.
As usual you won't, because you can't. You'll merely hint at
bacteria producing .. that's right more bacteria, and hope people
won't notice they're both bacteria.

You've been asked this numerous times and you never answer. But
it barely needed repeating from me - all the lurkers know you
avoid showing such an observation every time, knowing full well
they don't exist.

Gabriel · Guest

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 07:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

: On May 31, 10:20 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Wed, 28 May 2008 14:54:00 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: >
: > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
: >
: > : The June 2008 _Scientific American_ has an article by Carl Zimmer.
: > : whose blog is at:
: > :www.scienceblogs.com/loom
: > : under the title of "What is a species?".
: > :
: > : At that same blog site, John Wilkins discourses upon species at length
: > : here:
: > :http://tinyurl.com/3es8zh
: > :
: > : The article is about a real controversy in evolution - not the
: > : bullshit controversy that creationists and IDiot designers LIE about
: > : but a real controversy about what, exactly, is a species. According
: > : to Zimmer, there are at least 26 published concepts in circulation, of
: > : what a species is.
: > :
: > : The funny thing is that the article is also a direct refutation of
: > : special creation. The fact that species is such a fluid concept is a
: > : denies special creation and so-called intelligent so-called design,
: > : and it's rooted deeply in the fact of evolution.
: > :
: > : If the con-artist who fooled people into thinking he was Moses - you
: > : know the one who had a big hand in purloining and reinventing Genesis
: > : - hadn't LIED that some deity directly created scientifically
: > : undefined but immutable "kinds" - the Bible might have gotten away
: > : with it.
: > :
: > : If what the Bible tells me so were actually true, it would mean there
: > : could be no such thing as speciation. But the Bible indicates that
: > : "kind" is in fact, species and we know for a fact that there is
: > : speciation. One "type" has changed into something clearly of a
: > : different "type" directly under the observation of human beings.
: > :
: > : This proves two things: Evolution is a fact and the Bible starts out
: > : with a big, fat, LIE.
: > :
: > : Any creationist who disagrees is welcome to bring their positive
: > : scientific evidence for creation right here and debate it with me.
: > :
: > : But let me present you with this guarantee: No creationist can or
: > : will. Instead, what they will do is bring the most transparent and
: > : juvenile WHINING imaginable. Just sit back and watch how pathetic and
: > : vacuous they are - all of them!
: > :
: > : Budikka
: >
: > You've been shown this before, and always insult people to death
: > who refute what you claim.
:
: Look - exactly what I predicted. Three days late and nothing but
: whining from Gabriel! LoL! What a little knee-jerk puppet he is.
:
: It's not been refuted LIAR. Speciation is a fact. It's been directly
: observed repeatedly by human observers in the lab and in the wild.
: You've been shown this repeatedly. Your shameful stupidity and
: wilfull ignorance is not a refutation of anything but the hopeless
: myth that there lurks some intelligence somewhere in your gray mush.
:
: BTW, once again, when are you going to apologize for the huge insults
: you're regularly heaping upon scientists who are your fellow
: Christians who you're daily labeling liars and frauds? I've asked you
: this repeatedly and you RUN AWAY every time. Why do you ignore the
: plank in your own eye?
:
: Don't expect to be insult free when your whole belief system is
: predicated upon insulting others out of hand.
:
: Until and unless you address my criticisms of your question, you
: deserve nothing better than I have already given, but like a spoiled
: brat, you never will, will you, arrogantly convinced without a shred
: of reason that *you* (the most unscientific person imaginable) are
: right and pretty much the entire fully qualified scientific world is
: wrong?
:
: And until and unless you apologize for the insult after abuse after
: insult you've shamelessly heaped on scientists who share your faith,
: you will get no respect from me. Expect like for like, an eye for an
: eye, when you shamelessly and irrationally insult others, you will be
: insulted in return. Deal with it and quit whining like a baby.
:
: That said, I notice that once again that you arrogantly ignore all
: criticisms, all attempts to clue you in, all attempts to set right
: your shamefully deficient education, all rationale, all reason, all
: logic, all science, all examples, all support.
:
: I *did*. I gave you a specific example I was prepared to discuss with
: you using your own [rat] question. You completely ignored it. So
: once again, why is it you're asking this question and as soon as
: someone offers an answer you don't like you change the rules?
:
: Here, let me prove it. Here's your question:
:
: > Show where
: > it's ever been observed that populations of [x] have produced,
: > over generations (supposedly via mutations and accumulation of
: > small changes) animals that are clearly no longer [x]. (And you
: > can put any animal you want in place of the [x]).
:
: Here are 666 examples and evidences, a good many of which show one
: organism [x] which changes until it is clearly no longer [x] as
: determined not by some jumped-up Usenet ass-wipe like you, but by
: qualified scientists:
: 666 items of evidence for macroevolution:
: Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
: Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
: Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
: Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
: Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
: Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
: Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
: Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
: Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
: Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
: Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
: Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
: Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
: Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
: Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
: Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
: Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
: Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
: Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
: Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
: Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
: Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
: Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
: Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
: Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
: Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
: Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
: Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
: Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
: Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
: Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
: Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
: Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
: Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
: Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
: Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
: Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
: Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
: Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
: Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
: Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
: Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
: Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
: Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/cqb3n
: Examples 636-666: http://tinyurl.com/ay53o
:
: Now watch Gabriel deny them out of hand without even addressing them
: and without offering a shred of evidence to support his dishonest
: denial. Watch him dance lightly around all of the criticisms I've
: made of his bullshit question and then LIE that he hasn't done so.

You still haven't shown a single observation - only observations
of [mosquitoes] producing [mosquitoes].

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).

Or you can show I'm right by making up more reaons yet again why
you refuse to do this.

You don't need to show 500.. just show ONE.. because the fact is
you haven't even shown ONE.

:
: > Fact is you cannot show one such observation no matter what
: > animal you pick.
:
: LIE. I already did. Evolutionists already did. Others right here on
: Usenet already did. You've been pummeled repeatedly with examples and
: you've simply said "No it isn't" without offering a shred of support
: for your denial.
:
: In short, there is absolutely no answer whatsoever that you can be
: offered - even if your question were posed so that it was answerable -
: that you would have the honesty to accept.
:
: Do you think you're God Almighty that *you* and only *you* get to
: determine what evolution is when you clearly don't understand it and
: don't even believe in it?
:
: Here's an example - let's see how far and fast you run form this
: scenario: Recent genetic mapping has demonstrated that mice have 80%
: of our DNA (or we theirs) with each species having only some 300 genes
: that the other didn't have. Creationists have no intelligent
: explanation for this.
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
:
: What it means is that since the mouse and ourselves split from our
: common ancestor, we each have diversified only 300 genes out of some
: 30,000 each. Maybe these are new genes or maybe we lost some that the
: mouse didn't and vice versa. But the one thing that has the
: creationists on their backs with their legs in the air like dead bugs
: on a sun blazed window ledge is that such diversification is
: completely plausible. In other words, a mouse-like organism could as
: readily
: have evolved into a mouse as it could into a human.
:
: Let's make it tough on evolution and say that our common ancestor had
: a
: basic set of genes and in order for it to become a mouse or a human,
: it
: had to "grow" 300 new genes. We know there were critters not
: dissimilar to mice running around in the finale to the dinosaur era.
: In fact, similar creatures existed at least 75 million years ago.
: Last December, part of the DNA of one of them was recently
: reconstructed on computer:
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4056559.stm
:
: So let's set a starting point 60 million years ago and say this is
: where we and mice took off. We each had to grow 300 new genes in 60
: million years.
:
: Creationists like to say that a gene has, on average, 100,000 base
: pairs, so let's use that number. 100,000 base pairs times 300 genes
: means we had to grow 30 million new base pairs in 60 million years.
: That's one new base pair every two years! How hard is that? Not hard
: at all given the breeding rate of mice and other small mammals that
: kick-started this.
:
: What mechanism prevents it? Nothing! The creationists cannot offer a
: single argument against it, and this is the worst possible case they
: can throw at evolution. The worse case that can be made and
: creationists cannot argue a single thing against it! That's how
: pathetic their position is.
:
: Of course, evolution doesn't work in this simple, straight-forward
: mathematical mode, but then neither do you need to grow every new gene
: from scratch, given the wealth of pseudogenes and junk DNA the genome
: has for mutation to play with, so it evens out. This is just a
: demonstration of a concept, simplified so that even creationists can
: grasp it. It takes the worst case scenario and the creationists
: lose. No surprises there.
:
: > Instead you focus on what animal
:
: Again your ignorance shames you. I've covered more than animals, You
: flat refuse to even address the **FACT** that evolution affects all
: living things, not just animals. Why are you focussed on animals?
:
: That's why I raised the issues of bacteria, fungi, plants, etc. Yet
: you won't consider those, ignorantly obsessed with animals as you are.
:
: This one time I raised the specific issue of bacteria, you
: demonstrated unqequivocally that you don't have a clue what I'm
: talking about. So how on Earth are you even laughably qualified to
: judge anything that's presented to you?
:
: You equated the huge *kingdom* of [bacteria] directly with the tiny
: *genus* of [rat] and didn't have a clue what you'd done. Now you
: won't even address *those* criticisms. How pathetic is that?.
:
: > I happened to
: > put in place of [x] that time around, as if that one animal is
: > the only focal point of what is being asked. Bad news for you:
: > what I say is fact no matter what animal you pick.
:
: You're still focused on animals. Do you think animals are the only
: living things?
:
: > What do you do? Show bacteria producing bacteria.
:
: All bacteria are not the same. A photo caption in "The Undiscovered
: Planet" by Jonathan Shaw (published in Harvard Magazine (Nov-Dec
: 2007):
: http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/11/the-undiscovered-planet.html
: says "In terms of gene content, humans and potatoes are more closely
: related than...Vibrio cholerae...[and]...Mycobacterium tuberculosis."
:
: Humans and potatoes more closely related than two "types" of
: bacteria. You didn't know that, did you? Because you're an ignorant
: moron. That's why. You don't have even the first clue what it is
: you're discussing. You are shamefully unqualified to even think about
: evolution yet here you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of
: whether or not there's evolution! How pathetic and arrogant can you
: get?
:
: The article describes the massive diversity between bacteria that
: dwarfs what we typically think of as diversity in the world with which
: we're most familiar - the world of large multi-celled organisms: "In
: 1977, Woese (pronounced woes), a professor at the University of
: Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, drew a terrestrial family tree that
: showed the genetic relatedness of all living things on this planet.
: Using modern tools of molecular biology, he sampled the known single-
: celled, microscopic organisms we call microbes, and also the denizens
: of the human-scale world with which we are familiar: the flowers,
: trees, and shrubs; the animals; and the fungi. His map of all this new
: information revealed that taxonomists of ages past had been looking at
: the world through the wrong end of a telescope. The formerly great
: kingdoms of Plantae, Animalia, and Fungi almost disappeared, shrinking
: to fit on a small, trifurcating branch of his tree. In their place
: were three vast domains: Bacteria (single-celled microorganisms that
: lack a distinct nucleus and organelles); Archaea, or Archaebacteria
: (similar in appearance and simplicity to bacteria, but with notably
: different molecular organization); and Eukarya (all organisms whose
: cells have a distinct nucleus - or, simply put, everything else)."
:
: If bacteria can evolve, then so too can large organisms because
: evolution takes place in populations at the genetic level, not at the
: level of gross physiology as creationists dishonestly pretend. The
: fact is that there's less diversity - less evolution that needs to be
: explained, if you like - in large organisms than there is in single-
: celled organisms.
:
: In short, since creationists cannot even define "kind" let alone
: define the barrier they claim exists which prevents one "kind" giving
: rise to another over time, and since they don't even seem to be able
: to point out what a "kind" is in the world of bacteria, creationism
: collapses completely.
:
: So-called intelligent so-called design collapses with it. All you
: have to do is look at it and it's so weak it will fall apart.
:
: > : When I hit you about how
: > : stupid that was, you shrunk your large mammal to a rat. I guess you
: > : ran right home with that one.
: > :
: > : When I addressed that with a specific example, you *ignored* my
: > : response. Now I bring bacteria into the picture and **YOUR ENTIRE
: > : QUESTION HAS CHANGED**!
:
: > No, since you mentioned bacteria producing bacteria, as if you've
: > shown an observation, I'm now asking you to show populations of
: > bacteria that have produced (in whatever manner, over
: > generations) something that is clearly **no longer** bacteria.
:
: Again you're so ignorant of evoltuion that you missed the entire point
: of my message. A bacterium isn't a species. The bacterial kingdom is
: more diverse than the animal kingdom, yet you are on the one hand
: asking for an example of a rat (a species) becoming {not a rat]
: (another...what? You won't say. You're too ignorant and cowardly to
: tell us if it's another species you want or a genus or a family or a
: class or an order or a phylum).
:
: On the other hand, you're treating [bacteria] as if it's a species
: just like a rat. It isn't. The bacterial world is an entire
: kingdom. In short, the bacterial world encompasses more diversity
: than the animal world and you're too ignorant to know it. In short,
: you're a joke, and the entire Internet knows it by now.
:
: So the point is that even if I showed you a bacterium which changed
: into a different "type" of bacterium, which would meet your original
: criteria *precisely*, you'd deny it by saying - as indeed you have
: said - that "it's still a bacterium". That's how ignorant to the Nth
: degree you truly are.
:
: > Not a different kind of bacteria, but something that is clearly
: > no longer a bacteria at all.
:
: > If you can't do it for bacteria, then pick ANY animal you can
: > think of where such a thing was supposedly observed.
:
: See? You're still equating a kingdom of living things with a genus of
: living things. That's why you wouldn't define "type" when I asked you
: to weeks ago, and *that's why I wouldn;t answer your dihonest
: question. *That's* why I demanded that oyu give some deifntiions
: before I *did* answer it. I'm stillw aiting on your answers, you
: ignroant coward.
:
: But they'll never come, will they? Why? Because you're too ignorant
: to have a clue what I'm talking about. That's why you're an Internet
: joke.
:
: > See, I'm letting you pick any animal you want. Why? Because I
: > know you've never observed any such thing for any animal we've
: > observed in the entire recorded history of the human race.
:
: I listed TEN LIES in your question. Until you start addressing the
: flaws in your question you will get no respect or anything more than
: the reasonable answers - answers that any educated and reasonable
: person would accept - from me. Got that, Ignoramus?
:
: > Knowing this, as usual, you unfortunately turn into a torrent of
: > insults in the hopes that it will make it seem like you have a
: > point, which is unfortunate. But what is fortunate is those who
: > do not know what to think will see yet again loud and clear the
: > mentality of some people when it comes to being so irrational and
: > hateful when their beliefs are challenged.
:
: Wrong again. No insults in this reply at all, except to call you an
: ignoramus and label you as ignorant. That's not an insult given that
: I've shown that you are appallingly ignorant about evolution and
: thoroughly unqualified even to have a casual discussion on the topic
: here on Usenet.
:
: Again, following are all the things upon which you've taken the
: cowardly avoidance tack:
:
: > : Now it's no longer about one "type" (species) changing to another
: > : "type" (another species) - which has been demonstrated. It's no
: > : longer about one "type" (genus) changing to another "type" (another
: > : genus), which has also been demonstrated.
: > :
: > : No, you've gone way beyond that. It's not even about one
: > : "type" (Family) changing to another "type" (another Family), nor about
: > : one "type" (Order) changing to another "type" (another Order), nor
: > : about one "type" (Class) changing to another "type" (another Class),
: > : nor about one "type" (Phylum) changing to another "type" (another
: > : Phylum).
: > :
: > : Nope. You've had to climb all the way to the second highest
: > : classification of living things. Now you want me to show you an
: > : organism from one *kingdom* being observed by one living human being
: > : changing all the way across to another kingdom?! Just how stupid are
: > : you?
: > :
: > : How deathly afraid of me you must be to run away that far! It's not
: > : longer about mammalian evolution, which has been demonstrated amply,
: > : but about a single-celled organism changing to a multi-celled
: > : organism! LoL! Didn't I guarantee everyone that you'd move the goal-
: > : posts?
: > :
: > : Didn't I PREDICT this several weeks ago when I first showed what a
: > : deceitful little LYING shit you are? Didn't I promise people that if
: > : we did not nail you to the wall on what "type" is, you would slither
: > : like the LYING snake that you are to avoid having your bullshit
: > : question answered?
: > :
: > : Now here you are doing EXACTLY what I predicted you would do.
: > :
: > : How profoundly ignorant you truly are. Or did you think that all
: > : bacteria are the same, such that I'd have to show you something [not a
: > : bacterium] in order to fulfill the question. Ignoramus?
: > :
: > : I can show you single-celled organisms living as a multi-celled
: > : organism. I can show you single-celled organisms grouping into a
: > : multi-celled organism for a specific purpose. Ic an show you observed
: > : evolution in bacteria. But even if I did, even if I showed you the
: > : evolution evidence, you would still dishonestly move the goalposts,
: > : because dishonest is what's at the very core of your being.
: > :
: > : And dishonesty is at the very root of your question. You've
: > : dishonestly set yourself up as a god, a god who determines what is
: > : evolution and what isn't, what demonstrates evolution and what
: > : doesn't. You're scum is what you are, a LYING, fraudulent piece of
: > : trash right down into your heart.
: > :
: > : > It's quite simple, but
: > : > unfortunately you can show no such observation.
: > :
: > : Actually it is that simple, but the extreme depth of your profound
: > : ignorance of evolution coupled with your shameful dishonesty will
: > : prevent you from finding the wherewithal to admit that it's been
: > : demonstrated, just as you have run from admitting it's been
: > : demonstrated countless times previously. You will **NEVER** find the
: > : honesty to admit to it, because you can't, can you?
: > :
: > : Where's my guarantee that when I answer your question and show one
: > : bacterial "type" evolving into another bacterial "type", you will
: > : accept my answer?
:
: > Showing bacteria producing bacteria is not answering the
: > question.
:
: Yes it is. It's *exactly* answering your question to show one
: (undefined) "type" observed changing to another "type". I
: specifically *warned* you that your stupidity and ignorance in this
: topic would get you into trouble several weeks ago and now you're in
: *precisely* the trouble about which I warned you.
:
: > We already know bacteria produce bacteria.
:
: Ignorance. You're implicitly insisting here that bacteria are all one
: "type". They're not.
:
: > What you
: > believe is that, for example, bacteria came from things that were
: > not bacteria once upon a time, over generations.
:
: It's not a belief. Again, for the Nth time, it's what the weight of
: the evidence shows. Should we go with what the overwhelming weight of
: the evidence shows or with some 2,000+ year old myth? What's the more
: rationale action to take?
:
: > That every
: > animal alive came from ancestors that were clearly not that
: > animal.
:
: Not animals. Living things. Why are you too cowardly to address
: that?
:
: > That rats came from things once upon a time, over
: > generations, that were not rats.
:
: It's what the weight of the evidence shows. Should we go with what
: the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows or with some 2,000+ year
: old myth? What's the more rationale action to take?
:
: > That eagles came from animals,
: > again over generations, that were clearly not eagles. And so on
: > for every animal alive.
:
: It's what the weight of the evidence shows. It shows that birds are
: descend from dinosaurs. Otherwise why would a T Rex have DNA more
: closely related to a modern chicken than to a modern lizard? Should
: we go with what the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows or with
: some 2,000+ year old myth? What's the more rationale action to take?
:
: [Knee jerk repetitious meaningless question flushed where it belongs]
:
: Let me conclude with a quick reality check for Gabriel:
:
: You're not God Almighty.
:
: You're not remotely any kind of god.
:
: You're not remotely any kind of scientist.
:
: You don't get to create a bullshit definition of evolution, insist
: it's the *only* definition of evolution, and insist that unless *your*
: asinine defintiion is met, all of science collapses.
:
: You don't get to insult all scientists, even those who share your own
: faith and ignore all requests that you apologize for it.
:
: You don't get the right to ask nonsense questions and demand an
: answer.
:
: You don't get respect when you don't deserve it.
:
: You do get insults when you insult others.
:
: Take the massive plank from your own eye before you address what you
: perceive to be the minuscule mote in the eyes of others.
:
: Budikka

Ben Goren · Guest

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: