|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Free Lunch
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
 |
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:33:41 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
roymock@gmail.com wrote in
<c15fc5e8-1dad-4883-9310-5ec2a874276c@z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
| Quote: |
On Jun 26, 3:17 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
|
....
| Quote: |
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.
|
Pay very close attention to any anti-evolution activist who claims to be
a scientist. The odds are extremely good that he has never done science
in his life or that his science is so far away from biology that he has
no idea what he is attacking when it comes to evolution.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Liars can contest anything and creationists and ID folks who deny
evolution are either liars or followers of liars.
| Quote: |
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.
|
No need to run. Remember, though, that science has evidence to back up
all of its claims. Religions don't have any.
| 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
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
roymock@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 26, 3:17 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
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.
|
Unfortunately for the creationists, you're not seeing "scientists from
both sides with little common ground". If you go and investigate the
credentials of most creationist "scientists", you will find that they
are rarely if ever biologists.
Think about it this way - you don't ask your doctor for advice on how to
renovate your bathroom, so why would you accept the word of non
biologists about evolution?
The main tactics of creationists are ignoring data and quoting
scientists out of context to make it look the scientists said something
other than what they said. Ones like "Pastor" Dave, for example, are
known for making up false quotes that people supposedly have said.
Creationists want you to think that there evolution is a controversial
topic in science when it is exactly the opposite. Basically what they
are trying to do is like trying to tell you that the modern English
language never developed from Old English because Americans and British
can't agree on how colour/color is spelled.
| Quote: |
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.
|
There's no need fro you to leave - just lurk for a while and watch how
dishonest many creationists are. Watch how they ignore evidence
presented to them, how they quote authorities out of context.
What do you think of a person who uses the same argument over and over
again, even though they have been shown that argument is wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 26, 11:30 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 3:17 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
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.
Unfortunately for the creationists, you're not seeing "scientists from
both sides with little common ground". If you go and investigate the
credentials of most creationist "scientists", you will find that they
are rarely if ever biologists.
Think about it this way - you don't ask your doctor for advice on how to
renovate your bathroom, so why would you accept the word of non
biologists about evolution?
The main tactics of creationists are ignoring data and quoting
scientists out of context to make it look the scientists said something
other than what they said. Ones like "Pastor" Dave, for example, are
known for making up false quotes that people supposedly have said.
Creationists want you to think that there evolution is a controversial
topic in science when it is exactly the opposite. Basically what they
are trying to do is like trying to tell you that the modern English
language never developed from Old English because Americans and British
can't agree on how colour/color is spelled.
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.
There's no need fro you to leave - just lurk for a while and watch how
dishonest many creationists are. Watch how they ignore evidence
presented to them, how they quote authorities out of context.
What do you think of a person who uses the same argument over and over
again, even though they have been shown that argument is wrong?
|
Thanks for that. All the technical stuff from either side is going
over my head.
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:56:26 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 26, 11:30 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 3:17 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
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.
Unfortunately for the creationists, you're not seeing "scientists from
both sides with little common ground". If you go and investigate the
credentials of most creationist "scientists", you will find that they
are rarely if ever biologists.
Think about it this way - you don't ask your doctor for advice on how to
renovate your bathroom, so why would you accept the word of non
biologists about evolution?
The main tactics of creationists are ignoring data and quoting
scientists out of context to make it look the scientists said something
other than what they said. Ones like "Pastor" Dave, for example, are
known for making up false quotes that people supposedly have said.
Creationists want you to think that there evolution is a controversial
topic in science when it is exactly the opposite. Basically what they
are trying to do is like trying to tell you that the modern English
language never developed from Old English because Americans and British
can't agree on how colour/color is spelled.
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.
There's no need fro you to leave - just lurk for a while and watch how
dishonest many creationists are. Watch how they ignore evidence
presented to them, how they quote authorities out of context.
What do you think of a person who uses the same argument over and over
again, even though they have been shown that argument is wrong?
Thanks for that. All the technical stuff from either side is going
over my head.
|
Well, there really isn't any "technical stuff" on the creationists'
side. Just a bunch of pseudoscientific double-talk designed to confuse
the issue. <G>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 26, 1:27 pm, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:56:26 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 11:30 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 3:17 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
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.
Unfortunately for the creationists, you're not seeing "scientists from
both sides with little common ground". If you go and investigate the
credentials of most creationist "scientists", you will find that they
are rarely if ever biologists.
Think about it this way - you don't ask your doctor for advice on how to
renovate your bathroom, so why would you accept the word of non
biologists about evolution?
The main tactics of creationists are ignoring data and quoting
scientists out of context to make it look the scientists said something
other than what they said. Ones like "Pastor" Dave, for example, are
known for making up false quotes that people supposedly have said.
Creationists want you to think that there evolution is a controversial
topic in science when it is exactly the opposite. Basically what they
are trying to do is like trying to tell you that the modern English
language never developed from Old English because Americans and British
can't agree on how colour/color is spelled.
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.
There's no need fro you to leave - just lurk for a while and watch how
dishonest many creationists are. Watch how they ignore evidence
presented to them, how they quote authorities out of context.
What do you think of a person who uses the same argument over and over
again, even though they have been shown that argument is wrong?
Thanks for that. All the technical stuff from either side is going
over my head.
Well, there really isn't any "technical stuff" on the creationists'
side. Just a bunch of pseudoscientific double-talk designed to confuse
the issue. <G
|
Well, thanks for that. I'ld like to think that it's sometimes helpful
to distinguish people at the folk level for being less informed than
those up to speed in their movement.
So, given that there are credible scientists amongst the creationists,
do we know if any of their papers been published in Nature?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. House
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 27, 2:34 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
Well, there really isn't any "technical stuff" on the creationists'
side. Just a bunch of pseudoscientific double-talk designed to confuse
the issue. <G
Well, thanks for that. I'ld like to think that it's sometimes helpful
to distinguish people at the folk level for being less informed than
those up to speed in their movement.
So, given that there are credible scientists amongst the creationists,
do we know if any of their papers been published in Nature?
|
What credible scientists would that be? ID does not use the
scientific method. When someone tries to get non-science published as
science that eliminates them from being credible scientists.
Hypothesis: Our universe is less than 7,000 years old.
Test: If our hypothesis were true then no star would have existed over
7,000 years ago.
Result: We have found that some stars existed 15,000,000,000 years
ago.
Non-scientific conclusion: Therefore we reject the null hypothesis.
Obviously our test was wrong.
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: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:12:49 -0400, Augray
<augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
In this instance, it's possibly because this is the third time I've
caught him lying about Feduccia.
I haven't lied about him at all.
Yeah, you have.
He said what I quoted.
Did I say otherwise?
|
Then I have not lied about him.
| Quote: |
The problem is that you misrepresented his
position. You said Archaeopteryx "is nothing
but a perching bird", but that's clearly *not*
what Feduccia believes.
|
You trying to give what you believe about it,
is not proof that I lied about what he said.
I quoted his words. I also stated what it is.
If you want to believe it is what you believe
it is anyway, contrary to what it is and what
Feduccia said it is, that's up to you. But what
you're doing, is trying to claim that one
statement eliminates the other.
"It's a perching bird, period!"
"I believe in evolution!"
"Okay guys, the second statement cancels out
the first one, alright?"
Only desperate evolutionist idiots thing it does!
| Quote: |
The problem with evolutionists, is their straw men and
red herrings, all designed to avoid providing the supposed
"mountains of evidence" for macroevolution, which is
really nothing but examples of microevolution. You idiots
spend your time trying to change the subject, instead of
proving what you claim is true.
I'm trying to keep the subject on Archaeopteryx.
Why doesn't *it* qualify as evidence?
|
Thank you for proving my point! With evolutionists,
it's never "here's the proof". It's always, "Why isn't
it proof?".
What you must do, is PROVE MACROEVOLUTION.
Pointing at one creature and claiming it is evidence,
does not make it so, nor does it PROVE MACROEVOLUTION.
Some birds have teeth, some don't. Some birds have
bony tails, some don't. So what? And isn't it interesting
that evolutionists don't really show it the way it probably
looked alive? Rather, they like to show the lines in the
rock, because it makes it look more "dinosaur like",
when in reality, it looks that way, because it is just bones
you're looking at and it actually did have feathers!
So you have an extinct perching bird! So what?!
Had we not known the dodo bird, you'd call that
"an evolutionary link" as well!
To you idiot evolutionists, pointing at anything that lives
and claiming it is evidence, somehow proves evolution!
It takes a leap of faith to believe that evolution can make
the jump between cells and invertebrates, invertebrates
and vertebrates, reptiles and birds, fish and amphibians,
amphibians and reptiles and reptiles and mammals,
especially when out of place fossils are often found.
There are not merely missing links, but missing chains
between links (you claim they are links).
This shows that macroevolution is your imagination,
not proven science, since the only thing that can
prove what you believe, is a chain of fossils, from
one kind to another and we both know it!
If the fossils existed, then we would have had them
laid out for us and the debate would be over and
we wouldn't have evolutionists having an orgasm,
every time they think a link has been found!
--
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; That
whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new guards for their future security."
- Thomas Jefferson
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:12:49 -0400, Augray
augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
I'm trying to keep the subject on Archaeopteryx.
Why doesn't *it* qualify as evidence?
Thank you for proving my point! With evolutionists,
it's never "here's the proof". It's always, "Why isn't
it proof?".
|
Your reply would have gone over a whole lot better for you, Dave, if
Augray hadn't already posted 6 hours *before* you mentioning the many
ways in which Archeopteryx is nor "just a perching bird".
Augray said in article <news://4kqa641v0b0d22jaoqa3blfiud93du4755@4ax.com>:
| Quote: |
Why not? Why isn't his expertise good enough now? What about these
quotes that don't mention evolution?:
There are no skeletal features of _Archaeopteryx_, except the
furcula, that are not also found in Jurassic reptiles.
- Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age of Birds. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, pg. 24.
[Archaeopteryx is] a bird that has anatomical features of a
reptile, feathers, and a long, lizard-like tail.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale university Press, pg. 29.
Do you still believe that "he is an expert in the fields required"?
|
and then Augray said:
| Quote: |
So will you accept his expertise now?:
...the ancient anisodactyl foot was less efficient anatomically
than the foot of modern birds, and the [perching toe] of
_Archaeopteryx_ was slightly elevated above the plane of the
anterior toes and decidedly shorter.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale university Press, pg. 13.
|
after which Augray said:
| Quote: |
- Archaeopteryx lacked an alula (used to reduce wing turbulence during
low speed flight), which is found in living birds.
- Its metacarpal bones were not fused into a carpometacarpus, as in
living birds.
- The ulnare (a carpal bone in the wrist, AKA the cuneiform) of
Archaeopteryx was not V-shaped. In living birds this helps keep the
wing rigid during the downstroke, preventing it from buckling.
- It lacked a triosseal canal in the shoulder for passage of the
tendon of the supracoracoideus muscle (which assists in the wing's
upstroke).
- In living birds, the position of the acrocoracohumeral ligament
prevents dislocation of the shoulder during the upstroke. This is not
the situation in Archaeopteryx, where the ligament was situated as it
is in crocodiles.
- The shoulder joint of Archaeopteryx was oriented in such a way so
that the wing could not be raised above the horizontal position.
- Archaeopteryx lacked an ossified sternum for the attachment of the
flight muscles, and so would not have been a very powerful flyer.
All of the above shows that Archaeopteryx was a poor flyer at best,
and lacked the refinements for flight found in living birds. An
excellent example of an intermediate form.
|
Odd that you never responded to that post by Augray, don'tcha think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:07 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:50:29 -0400, Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in
<kk3c649tr22puoaifq34afe41e9uvqe3ls@4ax.com> :
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:12:49 -0400, Augray
augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
In this instance, it's possibly because this is the third time I've
caught him lying about Feduccia.
I haven't lied about him at all.
Yeah, you have.
He said what I quoted.
Did I say otherwise?
Then I have not lied about him.
|
Yes, you did. You said that Archaeopteryx "is nothing but a perching
bird", and then invoked Feduccia, saying "I will quote Feduccia a few
times, as he is an expert in the fields required", giving the
impression that Feduccia agreed with you. But he obviously *doesn't*
think that it's "nothing but a perching bird".
| Quote: |
The problem is that you misrepresented his
position. You said Archaeopteryx "is nothing
but a perching bird", but that's clearly *not*
what Feduccia believes.
You trying to give what you believe about it,
is not proof that I lied about what he said.
I quoted his words.
|
And implied that he held an opinion that he clearly does not hold.
| Quote: |
I also stated what it is.
|
No, you stated what you *wanted* it to be, and even though you cite
Feduccia as an expert, you disagree with him.
| Quote: |
If you want to believe it is what you believe
it is anyway, contrary to what it is and what
Feduccia said it is, that's up to you.
|
But the point is that it's *not* contrary to what Feduccia believes.
Both Feduccia and I accept that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.
On that point we're in complete agreement.
| Quote: |
But what
you're doing, is trying to claim that one
statement eliminates the other.
|
No, I'm stating that you don't understand what Feduccia was saying, or
that you deliberately distort it. He's simply claiming that
Archaeopteryx isn't a dinosaur, as some have claimed, but a bird. What
you're doing is the equivalent of saying that Jesus was "only a man".
| Quote: |
"It's a perching bird, period!"
|
Another distortion.
The Berlin _Archaeopteryx_ may well be the most important natural
history specimen in existence, comparable perhaps in scientific
and even monetary value to the Rosetta stone.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale University Press, pg. 29.
He obviously thinks that it's much more than "...a perching bird,
period!"
| Quote: |
"I believe in evolution!"
|
Based on evidence:
Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the
deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is
related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an
argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable
fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing.
| Quote: |
"Okay guys, the second statement cancels out
the first one, alright?"
|
More like "Pastor Dave takes Feduccia's words out of context".
| Quote: |
Only desperate evolutionist idiots thing it does!
|
But no one but you claims that there's any canceling out. What I'm
claiming is that you're lying about Feduccia's position.
| Quote: |
So, were you lying, or
were you ignorant of his position? But since I've provided evidence to
you of Feduccia's position on two previous occasions, I can only
assume that you're lying. How is that assumption unreasonable?
|
Well?
| Quote: |
The problem with evolutionists, is their straw men and
red herrings, all designed to avoid providing the supposed
"mountains of evidence" for macroevolution, which is
really nothing but examples of microevolution. You idiots
spend your time trying to change the subject, instead of
proving what you claim is true.
I'm trying to keep the subject on Archaeopteryx.
Why doesn't *it* qualify as evidence?
Thank you for proving my point! With evolutionists,
it's never "here's the proof". It's always, "Why isn't
it proof?".
|
In that case, Archaeopteryx is proof of evolution. Game over. But will
this satisfy you? Probably not. But can anyone ask *why* it doesn't?
No, because for some reason trying to understand Pastor Dave's
position is a no no. Probably because it boils down to Pastor Dave
simply not liking the implications. In the absence of any response
from you, one can only speculate. Personally, I'm leaning towards
willful ignorance.
| Quote: |
What you must do, is PROVE MACROEVOLUTION.
Pointing at one creature and claiming it is evidence,
does not make it so, nor does it PROVE MACROEVOLUTION.
Some birds have teeth, some don't.
|
None now living have teeth. Teeth are a primitive feature for birds.
| Quote: |
Some birds have
bony tails, some don't.
|
None now alive have long bony tails. That's another primitive feature
for birds.
But that's not all by a long shot. I gave you several other features
that you ignore, but which I've re-inserted below. Why do you avoid
them? Or is that another verboten question? Or is asking *any*
question of you taboo?
| Quote: |
And isn't it interesting
that evolutionists don't really show it the way it probably
looked alive?
|
Beyond doubt, [Archaeopteryx] is the most widely known and
illustrated animal...
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale University Press, pg. 29.
And remember, "...[Feduccia] is an expert in the fields required". So
how is it that you're making claims that contradict your chosen
expert? According to your champion, evolutionists *do* illustrate
Archaeopteryx quite a bit. Why is it that you didn't know that?
| Quote: |
Rather, they like to show the lines in the rock,
|
They're called "bones".
| Quote: |
because it makes it look more "dinosaur like",
when in reality, it looks that way, because it is just bones
you're looking at and it actually did have feathers!
|
So, bones don't actually mean anything, because they make the animal
look like a dinosaur? Did it occur to you that dinosaur bones may have
characteristics that allow them to be identified as having belonged to
dinosaurs? Or are you saying that scientists can't tell the difference
between bird bones and dinosaur bones? Or are these forbidden
questions?
| Quote: |
So you have an extinct perching bird! So what?!
Had we not known the dodo bird, you'd call that
"an evolutionary link" as well!
|
No, because dodos had features of living birds, like:
- a beak.
- bone fusion in the skull.
- a lack of teeth.
- saddle-shaped articular surfaces of the neck vertebrae
- a strut-shaped coracoid
- an ossified and keeled sternum.
- fused thoracic vertebrae.
- no gastralia.
- more than five sacral vertebrae.
- pubic bones retroverted, not fused to each other, but fused to the
illium and ishium.
- fibula doesn't reached the ankle.
- Fifth metatarsal absent.
- a tarsometatarsus.
- a pygostyle.
Hence, it's obvious that no one familiar with anatomy would consider
the dodo to be an evolutionary link. And it's obvious that you don't
know what evolutionists base their claims on. So why are you
critiquing something that you know nothing about?
| Quote: |
To you idiot evolutionists, pointing at anything that lives
and claiming it is evidence, somehow proves evolution!
|
Do you seriously think that evolutionists simply point to animals and
claim that they're evidence for evolution? You really need to read up
on the subject you're trying to criticize.
| Quote: |
It takes a leap of faith
|
When one deliberately ignores the evidence, as you do.
| Quote: |
to believe that evolution can make
the jump between cells and invertebrates, invertebrates
and vertebrates, reptiles and birds, fish and amphibians,
amphibians and reptiles and reptiles and mammals,
|
But since we have examples of all of these transitions, it's no
problem.
| Quote: |
especially when out of place fossils are often found.
|
But since it's relatively easy to recognize when a fossil is "out of
place", it's not a big deal.
| Quote: |
There are not merely missing links, but missing chains
between links (you claim they are links).
This shows that macroevolution is your imagination,
not proven science, since the only thing that can
prove what you believe, is a chain of fossils, from
one kind to another and we both know it!
If the fossils existed, then we would have had them
laid out for us and the debate would be over
|
Here's a chain from reptiles to birds: Euparkeria, Scleromochlus,
Lagerpeton, Marasuchus, Eoraptor, Coelophysis, Sinosauropteryx,
Dilong, Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx,
Rahonavis, Shenzhouraptor, Jeholornis, Jixiangornis, Sapeornis,
Sinornis, Liaoningornis, Yixianornis, Yanornis, Apsaravis,
Ichthyornis.
Is the debate over? Probably not. Hence, it's obvious that it's not
the "missing chains" that you have problems with.
| Quote: |
and we wouldn't have evolutionists having an orgasm,
every time they think a link has been found!
|
So, increasing knowledge isn't something to get excited about? If you
were Christopher Columbus, you've have sighted the New World, turned
abound and gone home. But then, you can't be bothered to check your
claims before posting them, so that's hardly surprising.
Below are things that Pastor Dave can address, and removed without
indicating they were ever there.
| Quote: |
The
truth is, that it doesn't matter what he believes about
evolution,
Why not? Why isn't his expertise good enough now? What about these
quotes that don't mention evolution?:
There are no skeletal features of _Archaeopteryx_, except the
furcula, that are not also found in Jurassic reptiles.
- Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age of Birds. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, pg. 24.
[Archaeopteryx is] a bird that has anatomical features of a
reptile, feathers, and a long, lizard-like tail.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale university Press, pg. 29.
Do you still believe that "he is an expert in the fields required"?
|
No answer?
| Quote: |
nor if he believes that birds evolved from
dinosaurs, nor vice versa. The quote I provided deals
with whether or not archaeopteryx is what you people
claim it is and he does not agree with that conclusion
and is an expert.
So will you accept his expertise now?:
...the ancient anisodactyl foot was less efficient anatomically
than the foot of modern birds, and the [perching toe] of
_Archaeopteryx_ was slightly elevated above the plane of the
anterior toes and decidedly shorter.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale university Press, pg. 13.
Now you go ahead and throw out all of the crapola
that you want to,
You're the one throwing out crapola here.
but nothing will change the fact
that you and the other evolutionists are dishonest
and that the one thing we never see from you,
is proof of macroevolution!
Yet Archaeopteryx is an excellent example of evolution, and Feduccia
agrees. Why do you reject his expertise, expertise *you* claimed that
he had??
You people do not debate honestly!
Debate!?! All you've done is thrown out a few quotes! If you really
want to debate, let's talk anatomy:
- Archaeopteryx lacked an alula (used to reduce wing turbulence during
low speed flight), which is found in living birds.
- Its metacarpal bones were not fused into a carpometacarpus, as in
living birds.
- The ulnare (a carpal bone in the wrist, AKA the cuneiform) of
Archaeopteryx was not V-shaped. In living birds this helps keep the
wing rigid during the downstroke, preventing it from buckling.
- It lacked a triosseal canal in the shoulder for passage of the
tendon of the supracoracoideus muscle (which assists in the wing's
upstroke).
- In living birds, the position of the acrocoracohumeral ligament
prevents dislocation of the shoulder during the upstroke. This is not
the situation in Archaeopteryx, where the ligament was situated as it
is in crocodiles.
- The shoulder joint of Archaeopteryx was oriented in such a way so
that the wing could not be raised above the horizontal position.
- Archaeopteryx lacked an ossified sternum for the attachment of the
flight muscles, and so would not have been a very powerful flyer.
All of the above shows that Archaeopteryx was a poor flyer at best,
and lacked the refinements for flight found in living birds. An
excellent example of an intermediate form.
So, do you want to debate, or are you going to run away again?
|
It certainly looks like you're avoiding the evidence, yet again.
| Quote: |
You make the claim
that macroevolution is a fact of science. Someone RESPONDS
TO YOUR CLAIM and asks for proof and all you can do,
is try to turn the tables and ask them questions and
tell them to prove God, or prove it does not happen,
etc., etc., etc., etc.!
I'm not asking you to prove God, and I never will. As far as I'm
concerned, that question is irrelevant to evolution. All I'm doing is
asking you to look at the anatomy. But we both know that you're not up
for that.
Not once in this thread, has any of you idiots proved
macroevolution and you damn well know it and trying
to toss insults at me and lie about me lying,
Feduccia doesn't think that Archaeopteryx was "nothing but a perching
bird". You know that. Hence, you lied. It's that simple.
does not
prove it
I never said that it did. But let's face it: lies are all you have, so
that's what you'll fall back on.
and is a red herring and you damn well know
that as well and it is why you do it!
Let's talk anatomy. Any other response will show that you're not
serious.
And "Don't forget, Judas also left early." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:10 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:46:17 -0400, Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in
<3hi564d7fnk6ql6hqqbf98e075ttta55vc@4ax.com> :
| Quote: |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:54:43 -0400, Augray
augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
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.
|
Well, none that you'll admit to.
How is what I wrote an insult?
| Quote: |
But hey,
that's what science is all about, right? <chuckle
|
Actually, it's about the evidence, which you run from.
| Quote: |
You and "House" both have something in common.
Claims without proof
|
You're not interested in proof.
| Quote: |
and ridicule of anyone who won't
bow at your feet.
|
No, I ridicule you because you misrepresent the opinions of others. I
ridicule you because you're not interested in learning anything. I
ridicule you because you're a coward. And I ridicule you because you
have the audacity to tell God how to do things.
| Quote: |
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.
|
This assumes that "the guy" uses the "House" handle *because* the
character is an atheist.
| Quote: |
But hey, macroevolution is nothing but TV. Imaginary
characters you set in an imaginary line and pretend
it's proof.
|
So, now Archaeopteryx is imaginary? The things creationists will do to
avoid the evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pastor Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:07:22 -0400, Augray
<augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:50:29 -0400, Pastor Dave
ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in
kk3c649tr22puoaifq34afe41e9uvqe3ls@4ax.com> :
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:12:49 -0400, Augray
augray@sympatico.ca> spake thusly:
In this instance, it's possibly because this is the third time I've
caught him lying about Feduccia.
I haven't lied about him at all.
Yeah, you have.
He said what I quoted.
Did I say otherwise?
Then I have not lied about him.
Yes, you did. You said that Archaeopteryx "is nothing
but a perching bird",
|
Yes, I said that. So what? That is not a lie about what
Feduccia said, who did say the following things...
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
“Archaeopteryx was clearly a well developed bird,
with true feathers.” - Alan Feduccia
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into
an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not.
It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of
‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Do you get that?!? P-A-L-E-O-B-A-B-B-L-E is what
he called your "opinion"!
And in another message, you said that you ridicule me
because of what I say about the opinions of other people,
thereby admitting it is just opinion and not proof and
furthermore, here you are, trying to make me out to
be a liar, because I said that it is nothing but a perching
bird! Now given what this expert said, my "opinion"
is justified! But here you try to ridicule it and yet,
claim that your "opinion" that it proves macroevolution,
which a fossils of a single creature cannot possibly do,
is somehow undeniable proof of macroevolution!
Now where is the proof of macroevolution?! You joined
into a discussion in which the claim of macroevolution
was responded to and proof was required. Yet all we
have seen from you, is claims and attacks on me, just
as I said would happen. And that is why I ridicule
your "opinions", because you claim they are proof!
YOU LIE! You keep claiming that you have proved
macroevolution, in one message after another,
pretending that pointing to one creature somehow
proves that it evolved from an entirely different
creature, dinosaurs, when one of the experts says...
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
Now how does YOUR CLAIM equal PROOF of macroevolution?!
| Quote: |
I also stated what it is.
No, you stated what you *wanted* it to be, and even though you cite
Feduccia as an expert, you disagree with him.
|
No stupid, I do not disagree with him on that bird.
And furthermore, "stating what you want it to be"
is what you have been doing!
| Quote: |
"It's a perching bird, period!"
Another distortion.
The Berlin _Archaeopteryx_ may well be the most important natural
history specimen in existence, comparable perhaps in scientific
and even monetary value to the Rosetta stone.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale University Press, pg. 29.
He obviously thinks that it's much more than "...a perching bird,
period!"
|
The quote does not say, "archaeopteryx evolved
from dinosaurs".
Now where is the proof of macroevolution?! You joined
into a discussion in which the claim of macroevolution
was responded to and proof was required. Yet all we
have seen from you, is claims and attacks on me, just
as I said would happen. And that is why I ridicule
your "opinions", because you claim they are proof!
YOU LIE! You keep claiming that you have proved
macroevolution, in one message after another,
pretending that pointing to one creature somehow
proves that it evolved from an entirely different
creature, dinosaurs, when one of the experts says...
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
Now how does YOUR CLAIM equal PROOF of macroevolution?!
| Quote: |
"I believe in evolution!"
Based on evidence:
Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the
deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is
related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an
argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable
fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing.
|
Prove it. A claim is not proof. Once again, you idiot
evolutionists think that a claim is proof and yet,
reject any claims made to the contrary of what you
want to believe.
I quote in response to you idiots quoting and then
you try to make it a war of quotes.
What you are doing, has nothing to do with macroevolution.
It has to do with proving that someone contradicted
themselves.
| Quote: |
"Okay guys, the second statement cancels out
the first one, alright?"
More like "Pastor Dave takes Feduccia's words out of context".
|
More like get a time line.
| Quote: |
Thank you for proving my point! With evolutionists,
it's never "here's the proof". It's always, "Why isn't
it proof?".
In that case, Archaeopteryx is proof of evolution. Game over.
|
One creature does not prove macroevolution, just because
evolutionists claim it does!
You are not this stupid, yet you pretend to be and
think it somehow makes you look smart, to claim
that pointing at one fossil proves macroevolution!
The bottom line is, as I originally stated time and time
again, claims do NOT prove macroevolution! You could
have 4 million q | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
