|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pastor Dave
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
 |
|
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:57:07 -0400, Augray
<augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
All of which are a lie. For example, the supposed
"horse evolution" has been debunked for many
years now and it didn't make sense to begin with,
using the fossils they did.
Where was it debunked?
|
Play dumb on someone else's time. This is the part
where you deny anything I might show you and
demand it be seen in a "peer reviewed journal",
which means to you that evolutionists must say it,
which of course, they hardly ever would and if
they did, it wouldn't be found there anyway!
You have been shown more than once and now
wish to pretend it never happened!
See below.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, reconstruction does not mean all of
the bones were present.
Given the large numbers of specimens available, I don't think that
lack of bones is a problem.
|
And yet, it is.
| Quote: |
They take artistic liberties,
just as they do with the supposed "ancestors of man",
regarding fur, etc., when there is no way to tell that.
That's irrelevant to actually determining the anatomy of the specimen.
no one makes a claim for a relationship based on hair, or lack
thereof.
|
They assume the place and then add the fur.
| Quote: |
There is no such thing as proven transitionals,
yet they keep telling people there are, even
though their supposed "chains of evolution"
have been debunked and they know that.
You'd certainly like your readers to think so.
|
Thanks for proving my point! Nowhere in your message
did you offer one shred of proof for macroevolution!
And you did was keep asking me to show that it did not
happen, which is all evolutionists have for an argument!
| Quote: |
Secondly, I do not debate web pages and it is clear
to me, that you do not understand what they are
saying and yet, claim proof!
You can debate me, if you like.
|
Why? you have already shown that all you're going
to do, is keep trying to put the burden of proof on me.
| Quote: |
There is no such thing as a chain of fossils proving
macroevolution from one kind to another. It simply
does not exist. They are showing you artists drawings
and claiming they are transitionals. They are not
however, proving that they are transitionals.
Why wouldn't creatures with intermediate features count as
transitionals?
|
Prove they are "intermediate features".
Once again, you ask me to provide evidence.
| Quote: |
As one example that you had mentioned, which was
archaeopteryx, that is nothing but a perching bird.
I will quote Feduccia a few times, as he is an expert
in the fields required.
How did you come to that conclusion?
|
Once again, a question, instead of proof of evolution!
| Quote: |
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
Unfortunately for Feduccia, he gives no reasoning for such a claim,
and besides, no one claims that birds evolved from large bipedal
dinosaurs with foreshortened forelimbs.
|
I see. So your questions show evolution happened,
but a guy who is an expert in these fields doesn't
count, because according to you, he didn't give
reasoning for his statement? BAWAHAHAHA!!!
| Quote: |
They also purposely don't tell you about all of the
differences between birds and dinosaurs, such as
the lung structure,
Theropod dinosaurs seem to have had a lung structure similar to birds.
|
You have already assumed evolution in that statement.
Your job is to prove it.
| Quote: |
hollow bones,
Theropod dinosaurs had hollow bones.
they way it breathes,
etc., etc..
You know how dinosaurs breathed?
It is flat out impossible!
Why?
|
Thank you for proving my point again! Your agenda
is to try to put me on the defense! You claim that
macroevolution is science, so prove it happens!
<snip attack on creationism>
As usual, you provided nothing. Not one shred of proof
for macroevolution. Asking me questions, to try to put me
on the defense, which assumes macroevolution is true
from go, is not the same thing as proving evolution.
Nor are attacks on Creationists proof of macroevolution.
You said I could debate you. Fine. Prove macroevolution
to me. Prove your case! This is not about me proving
that it didn't happen. This is not about Creationism.
This is about you proving that macroevolution happens!
Now either you can do that, or you can't. And no,
I do not debate web pages, which consist of nothing
more than someone else's claim, each and every time!
The fact is, if macroevolution were fact, there would be
no debate!
Now either you can prove to me that macroevolution
happens, or you can't! Which is it? The burden of
proof is on you. You make the positive claim that it
DOES happen! To assume that something is true
and then demand that everyone else must prove
a negative; that it did not happen, is not proof!
--
Don't forget, Judas also left early. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. House
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 23, 6:44 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
Your comments mocking Christians does not prove
that macroevolution occurs. Neither does your other
response. And since I don't waste my time with people
who seek to mock that which they simply hate, into my
kill file you go.
|
Where did Traveller mock anything? Dave you don't have to justify (or
in this case rationalize) your use of a killfile but why accuse him of
mocking if he doesn't? Where is it established that he 'simply' hates
Christianity? I mean you wouldn't throw accusations like that around
if they were empty or baseless - right?
House
Because some of the . . . er . . . more delicate individuals were
frightened by the Jayne Cobb reference. And no, I'm not a real Doctor
but Hugh Laurie plays one on TV. ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Wombat
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On 23 Jun, 18:29, "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 23, 6:44 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Your comments mocking Christians does not prove
that macroevolution occurs. Neither does your other
response. And since I don't waste my time with people
who seek to mock that which they simply hate, into my
kill file you go.
Where did Traveller mock anything? Dave you don't have to justify (or
in this case rationalize) your use of a killfile but why accuse him of
mocking if he doesn't? Where is it established that he 'simply' hates
Christianity? I mean you wouldn't throw accusations like that around
if they were empty or baseless - right?
|
Yes, but this is the modus operandi of 'Pastor' Dave. He throws
insults and unsupported assertions with gay abandon. When he knows he
has met his match, he disappears so fast you can almost hear the sonic
boom.
Wombat
| Quote: |
House
Because some of the . . . er . . . more delicate individuals were
frightened by the Jayne Cobb reference. And no, I'm not a real Doctor
but Hugh Laurie plays one on TV. ;-) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pastor Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:14:09 -0700 (PDT), traveller
<roseartpickett@gmail.com> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
On Jun 23, 7:12 am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:57:07 -0400, Augray
aug...@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
All of which are a lie. For example, the supposed
"horse evolution" has been debunked for many
years now and it didn't make sense to begin with,
using the fossils they did.
Where was it debunked?
Play dumb on someone else's time. This is the part
where you deny anything I might show you and
demand it be seen in a "peer reviewed journal",
which means to you that evolutionists must say it,
which of course, they hardly ever would and if
they did, it wouldn't be found there anyway!
You have been shown more than once and now
wish to pretend it never happened!
See below.
Furthermore, reconstruction does not mean all of
the bones were present.
Given the large numbers of specimens available, I don't think that
lack of bones is a problem.
And yet, it is.
They take artistic liberties,
just as they do with the supposed "ancestors of man",
regarding fur, etc., when there is no way to tell that.
That's irrelevant to actually determining the anatomy of the specimen.
no one makes a claim for a relationship based on hair, or lack
thereof.
They assume the place and then add the fur.
There is no such thing as proven transitionals,
yet they keep telling people there are, even
though their supposed "chains of evolution"
have been debunked and they know that.
You'd certainly like your readers to think so.
Thanks for proving my point! Nowhere in your message
did you offer one shred of proof for macroevolution!
And you did was keep asking me to show that it did not
happen, which is all evolutionists have for an argument!
Secondly, I do not debate web pages and it is clear
to me, that you do not understand what they are
saying and yet, claim proof!
You can debate me, if you like.
Why? you have already shown that all you're going
to do, is keep trying to put the burden of proof on me.
There is no such thing as a chain of fossils proving
macroevolution from one kind to another. It simply
does not exist. They are showing you artists drawings
and claiming they are transitionals. They are not
however, proving that they are transitionals.
Why wouldn't creatures with intermediate features count as
transitionals?
Prove they are "intermediate features".
Once again, you ask me to provide evidence.
As one example that you had mentioned, which was
archaeopteryx, that is nothing but a perching bird.
I will quote Feduccia a few times, as he is an expert
in the fields required.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Once again, a question, instead of proof of evolution!
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
Unfortunately for Feduccia, he gives no reasoning for such a claim,
and besides, no one claims that birds evolved from large bipedal
dinosaurs with foreshortened forelimbs.
I see. So your questions show evolution happened,
but a guy who is an expert in these fields doesn't
count, because according to you, he didn't give
reasoning for his statement? BAWAHAHAHA!!!
They also purposely don't tell you about all of the
differences between birds and dinosaurs, such as
the lung structure,
Theropod dinosaurs seem to have had a lung structure similar to birds.
You have already assumed evolution in that statement.
Your job is to prove it.
hollow bones,
Theropod dinosaurs had hollow bones.
they way it breathes,
etc., etc..
You know how dinosaurs breathed?
It is flat out impossible!
Why?
Thank you for proving my point again! Your agenda
is to try to put me on the defense! You claim that
macroevolution is science, so prove it happens!
snip attack on creationism
As usual, you provided nothing. Not one shred of proof
for macroevolution. Asking me questions, to try to put me
on the defense, which assumes macroevolution is true
from go, is not the same thing as proving evolution.
Nor are attacks on Creationists proof of macroevolution.
You said I could debate you. Fine. Prove macroevolution
to me. Prove your case! This is not about me proving
that it didn't happen. This is not about Creationism.
This is about you proving that macroevolution happens!
Now either you can do that, or you can't. And no,
I do not debate web pages, which consist of nothing
more than someone else's claim, each and every time!
The fact is, if macroevolution were fact, there would be
no debate!
Now either you can prove to me that macroevolution
happens, or you can't! Which is it? The burden of
proof is on you. You make the positive claim that it
DOES happen! To assume that something is true
and then demand that everyone else must prove
a negative; that it did not happen, is not proof!
Does God really need anyone to argue (his/her) existance? Is it
really necessary for believers to convert the world? How many
believers reap anger and frustration in their heart while (believing)
the sword of the Lord is in their right hand and it is their duty to
come forth and agrue the case of the Lord their God. These are
negative self-serving emotions and contrary to the benefits of the
christian belief system. Go in peace and wait for the knock on the
door.
|
I did not "argue my case for the Lord my God".
This is about them proving macroevolution occurs.
But you knew that and decided to try to change
the subject and try to put me on the defense,
to avoid having to support your religion of
evolution. But you knew you were doing that too.
Your comments mocking Christians does not prove
that macroevolution occurs. Neither does your other
response. And since I don't waste my time with people
who seek to mock that which they simply hate, into my
kill file you go.
--
If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio
out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pastor Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:59:35 -0700 (PDT), traveller
<roseartpickett@gmail.com> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
On Jun 22, 4:27 am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com spake thusly:
I had always understood that the theory of evolution
is flawed since there are no missing-links to be found:
but I've recently come across this piece by a well known
scientist in the media, here
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/science/podcast/gmis/gmis20080605.mp3
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/)
who cites some examples to the contrary.
No, he doesn't. And as to that other link in another
message, no, those are not transitionals. Not even
close, dude!
Transitionals are not "flowers to flowers", et al.
That's microevolution, which is a fact of science.
You are claiming macroevolution, which is a
fantasy of scientists who wish to eliminate God.
What can not be defined can not be elimated...
and the search CONTINUES!
|
For you, of course, because you worship monkeys
and know how foolish that is. Bye now!
--
Use the force, idiot! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:12:34 -0400, Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in
<lk0v54pplk72od1ocdui25nrsq0dhv104c@4ax.com> :
| Quote: |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:57:07 -0400, Augray
augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
All of which are a lie. For example, the supposed
"horse evolution" has been debunked for many
years now and it didn't make sense to begin with,
using the fossils they did.
Where was it debunked?
Play dumb on someone else's time. This is the part
where you deny anything I might show you and
demand it be seen in a "peer reviewed journal",
which means to you that evolutionists must say it,
which of course, they hardly ever would and if
they did, it wouldn't be found there anyway!
|
Is this an admission that it hasn't been debunked?
Of course, an "evolutionist" could still subscribe to evolution, yet
admit that there was no evidence for horse evolution. So go ahead,
present some kind of debunking, and we'll see how it holds up under
scrutiny.
| Quote: |
You have been shown more than once and now
wish to pretend it never happened!
|
I don't read all of your posts, so it seems that I missed it. Please
post it again.
There's nothing about horse evolution below.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, reconstruction does not mean all of
the bones were present.
Given the large numbers of specimens available, I don't think that
lack of bones is a problem.
And yet, it is.
|
Please be more specific. Which proposed horse ancestor is lacking in
this regard?
| Quote: |
They take artistic liberties,
just as they do with the supposed "ancestors of man",
regarding fur, etc., when there is no way to tell that.
That's irrelevant to actually determining the anatomy of the specimen.
no one makes a claim for a relationship based on hair, or lack
thereof.
They assume the place and then add the fur.
|
Even if true, it's still irrelevant to determining how the bones fit
together, the posture of the specimen, the range of motion at each
joint, the shape of the bones, the muscle insertion scars on the
bones, etc. Besides, in the vast majority of mammal fossils, the
presence of fur and/or hair covering the body is a given.
| Quote: |
There is no such thing as proven transitionals,
yet they keep telling people there are, even
though their supposed "chains of evolution"
have been debunked and they know that.
You'd certainly like your readers to think so.
Thanks for proving my point! Nowhere in your message
did you offer one shred of proof for macroevolution!
And you did was keep asking me to show that it did not
happen, which is all evolutionists have for an argument!
|
Well, no, that's not the case at all. For instance, evolutionists have
Archaeopteryx as evidence for macroevolution.
| Quote: |
Secondly, I do not debate web pages and it is clear
to me, that you do not understand what they are
saying and yet, claim proof!
You can debate me, if you like.
Why? you have already shown that all you're going
to do, is keep trying to put the burden of proof on me.
|
So, you don't have to back up your claims?
| Quote: |
There is no such thing as a chain of fossils proving
macroevolution from one kind to another. It simply
does not exist. They are showing you artists drawings
and claiming they are transitionals. They are not
however, proving that they are transitionals.
Why wouldn't creatures with intermediate features count as
transitionals?
Prove they are "intermediate features".
|
For instance, in Archaeopteryx the pubis is oriented in an
intermediate position between most theropod dinosaurs and living
birds. It also had a hallux (the perching toe on the foot)
intermediate in position between theropod dinosaurs and living birds.
In virtually all other respects, it had the anatomy of a theropod
dinosaur.
| Quote: |
Once again, you ask me to provide evidence.
|
I don't ask you to do anything more than I ask of myself.
| Quote: |
As one example that you had mentioned, which was
archaeopteryx, that is nothing but a perching bird.
I will quote Feduccia a few times, as he is an expert
in the fields required.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Once again, a question, instead of proof of evolution!
|
Questions aren't allowed? Besides, you cite Feduccia as an expert, but
reject his conclusion that "Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half
bird any way you cut the deck". Why the double standard?
| Quote: |
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
Unfortunately for Feduccia, he gives no reasoning for such a claim,
and besides, no one claims that birds evolved from large bipedal
dinosaurs with foreshortened forelimbs.
I see. So your questions show evolution happened,
but a guy who is an expert in these fields doesn't
count, because according to you, he didn't give
reasoning for his statement? BAWAHAHAHA!!!
|
How is that any different than you? When Feduccia says that
"Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the
deck", why doesn't that count? But if you feel up to it, we can
certainly debate the anatomy of Archaeopteryx, which amply
demonstrates its intermediate status, something that Feduccia agrees
with.
| Quote: |
They also purposely don't tell you about all of the
differences between birds and dinosaurs, such as
the lung structure,
Theropod dinosaurs seem to have had a lung structure similar to birds.
You have already assumed evolution in that statement.
|
No, I haven't.
| Quote: |
Your job is to prove it.
|
In living birds, a large number of bones are "pneumatic", that is,
they're invaded by air sacs that are associated with the lungs. These
invasions leave large holes in the bones that betray their existence
in fossils. All but the most primitive theropod dinosaurs also had
pneumatic vertebrate, like living birds, but they lacked pneumaticity
in other bones (the humerus, for example). Hence, most theropod
dinosaurs had some kind of air sac system already in place. Here's a
reference:
O’Connor, P. M., & L. P. A. M. Claessens. 2005. Basic avian pulmonary
design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
Nature 436:253-256.
| Quote: |
hollow bones,
Theropod dinosaurs had hollow bones.
they way it breathes,
etc., etc..
You know how dinosaurs breathed?
|
Well?
| Quote: |
It is flat out impossible!
Why?
Thank you for proving my point again! Your agenda
is to try to put me on the defense!
|
If you feel that justifying your claims is a burden, then why post?
| Quote: |
You claim that
macroevolution is science, so prove it happens!
|
See Cory Albrecht's message at
news:5m73j5xhtg.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net for examples.
| Quote: |
snip attack on creationism
As usual, you provided nothing. Not one shred of proof
for macroevolution. Asking me questions, to try to put me
on the defense, which assumes macroevolution is true
from go, is not the same thing as proving evolution.
Nor are attacks on Creationists proof of macroevolution.
|
I never claimed that they were. I was merely pointing out that
Feduccia accepts that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form. Citing
him as someone who says otherwise is a misrepresentation.
| Quote: |
You said I could debate you. Fine. Prove macroevolution
to me. Prove your case! This is not about me proving
that it didn't happen. This is not about Creationism.
This is about you proving that macroevolution happens!
|
Actually, it's about your claim that "There is no such thing as proven
transitionals". This implies a complete knowledge of the fossil
record, which I do not believe that you have. It's my proposition that
Archaeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional form, and I'm
quite willing to defend that claim.
| Quote: |
Now either you can do that, or you can't. And no,
I do not debate web pages, which consist of nothing
more than someone else's claim, each and every time!
The fact is, if macroevolution were fact, there would be
no debate!
|
There is none, at least among biologists.
| Quote: |
Now either you can prove to me that macroevolution
happens, or you can't! Which is it? The burden of
proof is on you. You make the positive claim that it
DOES happen! To assume that something is true
and then demand that everyone else must prove
a negative; that it did not happen, is not proof!
|
I'll present Archaeopteryx as evidence that macroevolution happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:11:27 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. House"
<hsototr@hotmail.com> wrote in
<0f80b56e-b25c-4d16-919b-13737af249c4@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> :
| Quote: |
On Jun 23, 4:01 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
|
[big snip]
| Quote: |
We even have a
well known living descendent of a transitional in the platypus.
That is a claim, not proof! You idiot evolutionists seem
to think that if you say something, that means it has been
proved to the world!
Has fur and warm blood so it's a mammal
Lays eggs and has a duck bill so it's a bird
|
Well, it's a bill that looks like a duck's bill, but it's not really
the same. The supporting bones are remarkably different, and the bill
itself is soft and supple, unlike a duck's, which is covered with
keratin.
| Quote: |
Well the one thing it isn't is an animal that is mammal like and bird
like all at the same time because that _can't_ exist.
|
It's not really that bird-like, but it certainly has some of the
attributes of a reptile.
[snip the rest] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
traveller
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 23, 9:44 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:59:35 -0700 (PDT), traveller
roseartpick...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
On Jun 22, 4:27 am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com spake thusly:
I had always understood that the theory of evolution
is flawed since there are no missing-links to be found:
but I've recently come across this piece by a well known
scientist in the media, here
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/science/podcast/gmis/gmis20080605.mp3
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/)
who cites some examples to the contrary.
No, he doesn't. And as to that other link in another
message, no, those are not transitionals. Not even
close, dude!
Transitionals are not "flowers to flowers", et al.
That's microevolution, which is a fact of science.
You are claiming macroevolution, which is a
fantasy of scientists who wish to eliminate God.
What can not be defined can not be elimated...
and the search CONTINUES!
For you, of course, because you worship monkeys
and know how foolish that is. Bye now!
--
Use the force, idiot!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
I'm christian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On 21 Jun, 05:32, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
old man joe wrote:
|
[snipped for brevity]
| Quote: |
the Evolutionist will not get on a bullet train knowing there's
tracks missing down the line but he certainly gets on the Evolution
Train with lots of tracks missing in his story line.
|
[snipped for brevity]
In response to old man joe's waffle, the "gaps" in the track of
evolution are all behind us, so your comparison falls at the first
hurdle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. House
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 23, 10:14 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
Has fur and warm blood so it's a mammal
Lays eggs and has a duck bill so it's a bird
Well, it's a bill that looks like a duck's bill, but it's not really
the same. The supporting bones are remarkably different, and the bill
itself is soft and supple, unlike a duck's, which is covered with
keratin.
Well the one thing it isn't is an animal that is mammal like and bird
like all at the same time because that _can't_ exist.
It's not really that bird-like, but it certainly has some of the
attributes of a reptile.
|
<sarcasm>
Ah you only say that because that's what your religion "science" tells
you to assume. Only those who blindly follow that religion get to
publish in peer reviewed journals.
The ID people know the truth: egg-laying, duck-billed creatures are
birds.
</sarcasm>
;-)
Seriously though, I had a feeling that my comment would be out of
date. Thanks. I guess I should have done a bit more research on it.
As a layman I know going in that my arguments won't be rigorous but my
goal is to persuade the fundamentalist that they don't have to be anti-
science. I figure my odds of success are slim to none but I've got to
try anyway. The fundamentalists tend to use a very simplified
classification based on animal "kinds". That works for animals
commonly found near civilization but fails when we include exotic
places or ultra harsh environments.
House
Because some of the . . . er . . . more delicate individuals were
frightened by the Jayne Cobb reference. And no, I'm not a real Doctor
but Hugh Laurie plays one on TV. ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pastor Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:09:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. House"
<hsototr@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
On Jun 23, 10:14 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
Has fur and warm blood so it's a mammal
Lays eggs and has a duck bill so it's a bird
Well, it's a bill that looks like a duck's bill, but it's not really
the same. The supporting bones are remarkably different, and the bill
itself is soft and supple, unlike a duck's, which is covered with
keratin.
Well the one thing it isn't is an animal that is mammal like and bird
like all at the same time because that _can't_ exist.
It's not really that bird-like, but it certainly has some of the
attributes of a reptile.
sarcasm
Ah you only say that because that's what your religion "science" tells
you to assume. Only those who blindly follow that religion get to
publish in peer reviewed journals.
The ID people know the truth: egg-laying, duck-billed creatures are
birds.
/sarcasm
;-)
Seriously though, I had a feeling that my comment would be out of
date. Thanks. I guess I should have done a bit more research on it.
As a layman I know going in that my arguments won't be rigorous but my
goal is to persuade the fundamentalist that they don't have to be anti-
science. I figure my odds of success are slim to none but I've got to
try anyway. The fundamentalists tend to use a very simplified
classification based on animal "kinds". That works for animals
commonly found near civilization but fails when we include exotic
places or ultra harsh environments.
|
Notice folks, he refused to respond to me with proof.
But hey, macroevolution is a fact of science, right?
Bawahahahaha!!!!!!!!
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory
of his Father with his angels; and then he shall
reward every man according to his works.
2 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Jesus said He would return within the lifetime
of the Apostles. We know this, because Jesus
said SOME (at least one, not not most) would
be alive when this happened.
This is not the Transfiguration. There was no
coming with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they were
all still alive.
This is not Pentecost. There was no coming
with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they
were all but one, still alive.
Now see a verse that no one argues is about
His Second Coming and see that this is what
Jesus was referring to, in Matthew 16:27-28.
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward
is with me, to give every man according as
his work shall be." - Revelation 22:12
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:59:59 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 22, 6:27 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com
spake thusly:
I had always understood that the theory of evolution
is flawed since there are no missing-links to be found:
but I've recently come across this piece by a well known
scientist in the media, here
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/science/podcast/gmis/gmis20080605.mp3
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/)
who cites some examples to the contrary.
No, he doesn't. And as to that other link in another
message, no, those are not transitionals. Not even
close, dude!
It was only a piece by a scientist well known in the media in my
country. I dunno if his take is challenged by the scientific
community regards transitionals, or if they have different opinions in
this field.
The EncBrit says "... The transitional forms are well preserved as
fossils, as are many other kinds of extinct horses that evolved in
different directions and left no living descendants. Paleontologists
have also been able to recover and reconstruct radical transitions in
form and function." and goes on with an examples of reptiles, horses,
and others.
Other examples are given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
which I take to be macroevolutions.
Transitionals are not "flowers to flowers", et al.
That's microevolution, which is a fact of science.
You are claiming macroevolution, which is a
fantasy of scientists who wish to eliminate God.
Thanks for that. I didn't realize there was a distinction between
macro and micro-evolution in these discussions.
|
Only in the minds of creationists. Biologists make no such
distinction, since "macro" is just accumulated "micro". To a
biologist, it's all just evolution. Only those with a vested interest
in denying the facts draw arbitrary lines - and then claim without any
corroborating evidence that nothing can cross them.
"Pastor" Dave - who's no more a pastor than I am - hasn't a clue what
he's talking about. He merely parrots the creationist party line
without ever bothering to actually think about it. He apparently
doesn't even understand that it's *populations* that evolve, not
individuals. He seems to think that because plants don't transform
into animals and dogs don't give birth to cats, evolution must be
false. The poster child for scientific illiteracy, that's our Dave.
<G>
You'll see soon enough, if you haven't already, that Dave's ignorance
of all things scientific is exceeded only by his arrogance and
dishonesty.
If you're genuinely interested in learning the *truth* about evolution
and the theories explaining it, there's little I can add to the
excellent advice Cory has already given you, save this: never believe
*anything* a creationist tells you about evolution. Most of them know
nothing about it, and the few who do know lie about it. Creationists
care nothing for the truth. They care only about promoting their
religious/political agenda, and they'll resort to any means necessary
to do so, including, to put it bluntly, lying their asses off.
An aside: It's rather telling, don't you think, that until fairly
recently, creationists denied the reality of *any* evolution,
including what they now refer to as "microevolution". It was only when
the evidence became so overwhelming that even they could no longer
deny it that they modified their stance to allow that *some* change
does occur. Of course, they'll deny this too, but as usual, their own
words prove them liars.
Forget about the creationists and put your money on the scientists.
It's a safe bet. <G>
| Quote: |
The article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution says that
scientists and creationists use macroevolution and microevolution
terms differently.
On-the-other-hand, I discovered CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page
wherein says " Evolutionists remain unable to provide any empirical
evidence that a new plant or animal species has ever originated as a
result of the gradual accumulation of DNA through natural selection,
producing new types of beneficial structures or functions which are
totally lacking in the ancestral species" .
Cheers.
--
It's hard to stumble when you're down on your knees. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 26, 3:17 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:59:59 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 22, 6:27 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com
spake thusly:
I had always understood that the theory of evolution
is flawed since there are no missing-links to be found:
but I've recently come across this piece by a well known
scientist in the media, here
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/science/podcast/gmis/gmis20080605.mp3
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/)
who cites some examples to the contrary.
No, he doesn't. And as to that other link in another
message, no, those are not transitionals. Not even
close, dude!
It was only a piece by a scientist well known in the media in my
country. I dunno if his take is challenged by the scientific
community regards transitionals, or if they have different opinions in
this field.
The EncBrit says "... The transitional forms are well preserved as
fossils, as are many other kinds of extinct horses that evolved in
different directions and left no living descendants. Paleontologists
have also been able to recover and reconstruct radical transitions in
form and function." and goes on with an examples of reptiles, horses,
and others.
Other examples are given inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
which I take to be macroevolutions.
Transitionals are not "flowers to flowers", et al.
That's microevolution, which is a fact of science.
You are claiming macroevolution, which is a
fantasy of scientists who wish to eliminate God.
Thanks for that. I didn't realize there was a distinction between
macro and micro-evolution in these discussions.
Only in the minds of creationists. Biologists make no such
distinction, since "macro" is just accumulated "micro". To a
biologist, it's all just evolution. Only those with a vested interest
in denying the facts draw arbitrary lines - and then claim without any
corroborating evidence that nothing can cross them.
"Pastor" Dave - who's no more a pastor than I am - hasn't a clue what
he's talking about. He merely parrots the creationist party line
without ever bothering to actually think about it. He apparently
doesn't even understand that it's *populations* that evolve, not
individuals. He seems to think that because plants don't transform
into animals and dogs don't give birth to cats, evolution must be
false. The poster child for scientific illiteracy, that's our Dave.
G
You'll see soon enough, if you haven't already, that Dave's ignorance
of all things scientific is exceeded only by his arrogance and
dishonesty.
If you're genuinely interested in learning the *truth* about evolution
and the theories explaining it, there's little I can add to the
excellent advice Cory has already given you, save this: never believe
*anything* a creationist tells you about evolution. Most of them know
nothing about it, and the few who do know lie about it. Creationists
care nothing for the truth. They care only about promoting their
religious/political agenda, and they'll resort to any means necessary
to do so, including, to put it bluntly, lying their asses off.
An aside: It's rather telling, don't you think, that until fairly
recently, creationists denied the reality of *any* evolution,
including what they now refer to as "microevolution". It was only when
the evidence became so overwhelming that even they could no longer
deny it that they modified their stance to allow that *some* change
does occur. Of course, they'll deny this too, but as usual, their own
words prove them liars.
Forget about the creationists and put your money on the scientists.
It's a safe bet. <G
|
Thanks for that input. This topic has gone well beyond my capacity to
comprehend - I'm seeing scientists from both sides with little common
ground on definitions and descriptions - and I have neither time nor
means to appraise the data that's out there.
On macro-evolution vs micro-evolution; I've a come across the view
that it's just a matter of scale than distinct categories; but I'm
sure even that can be contested. Therefore I'm loosing interest in
the topic again and not following the thread.
For years I taken the middle position by saying that: science
enquires into When and How of our phenomenal world, whereas the Bible
tells us Who and Why (i.e. ethics or relationships). Perhaps I'll
hold onto that a little longer until I feel brave enough to venture
into the topic again.
Cheers.
| Quote: |
The article inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolutionsays that
scientists and creationists use macroevolution and microevolution
terms differently.
On-the-other-hand, I discovered CreationWikihttp://creationwiki.org/Main_Page
wherein says " Evolutionists remain unable to provide any empirical
evidence that a new plant or animal species has ever originated as a
result of the gradual accumulation of DNA through natural selection,
producing new types of beneficial structures or functions which are
totally lacking in the ancestral species" .
Cheers.
--
It's hard to stumble when you're down on your knees. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:09:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. House"
<hsototr@hotmail.com> wrote in
<b531a5e8-75ec-4154-9a29-147b5c0ec5f0@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
| Quote: |
On Jun 23, 10:14 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
Has fur and warm blood so it's a mammal
Lays eggs and has a duck bill so it's a bird
Well, it's a bill that looks like a duck's bill, but it's not really
the same. The supporting bones are remarkably different, and the bill
itself is soft and supple, unlike a duck's, which is covered with
keratin.
Well the one thing it isn't is an animal that is mammal like and bird
like all at the same time because that _can't_ exist.
It's not really that bird-like, but it certainly has some of the
attributes of a reptile.
sarcasm
Ah you only say that because that's what your religion "science" tells
you to assume. Only those who blindly follow that religion get to
publish in peer reviewed journals.
The ID people know the truth: egg-laying, duck-billed creatures are
birds.
/sarcasm
|
Which leads to the very serious question/riddle: Do birds have
feathers because they're birds, or are they birds because they have
feathers?
| Quote: |
;-)
Seriously though, I had a feeling that my comment would be out of
date. Thanks.
|
No problem.
| Quote: |
I guess I should have done a bit more research on it.
As a layman I know going in that my arguments won't be rigorous but my
goal is to persuade the fundamentalist that they don't have to be anti-
science. I figure my odds of success are slim to none but I've got to
try anyway.
|
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
| Quote: |
The fundamentalists tend to use a very simplified
classification based on animal "kinds". That works for animals
commonly found near civilization but fails when we include exotic
places or ultra harsh environments.
|
Ultimately, creationists are only concerned with making sure that
humans don't share their "kind" with anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pastor Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:46 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:54:43 -0400, Augray
<augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
Ultimately, creationists are only concerned with making sure that
humans don't share their "kind" with anything else.
|
Not too bright, huh? Of course not. That's why
there's never any proof. Just insults. But hey,
that's what science is all about, right? <chuckle>
You and "House" both have something in common.
Claims without proof and ridicule of anyone who won't
bow at your feet.
And isn't it interesting that the guy who claims his
evolutionary beliefs are "Christian", is the one who
labels himself after a TV character who is an atheist.
But hey, macroevolution is nothing but TV. Imaginary
characters you set in an imaginary line and pretend
it's proof.
--
"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| 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
