|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
old man joe
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing there ar |
 |
|
using their own ' science ' as the means to find a reality which
makes sense only to them, the Evolutionist will not use this same
science in his own daily life.
this just shows the folly of the ' science ' used to concoct the
thinking that the sum total of lies equal truth.
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.
how elements that are not alive and never will be alive initiated
life in themselves is simply not worth answering in the Evolutionists
' science '. the elements making up the Evolutionists human body are
not alive; were never alive and never will be alive... he is alive
only because the Living God made him alive.
this, they can't escape.... that's why they don't want to give an
answer of how the elements of their body are not alive yet they, the
whole person, are alive... the dodging of answering this basic part of
their mighty Evolutionary science scheme exposes them for what they
are... pathological liars.
an excerpt from Wikipedia :
A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her
stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people. It may
be that a pathological liar is different from a normal liar in that a
pathological liar believes the lie he or she is telling to be true---
at least in public--- and is "playing" the role. He or she sometimes
is seen to have a serious mental problem that needs to be rectified.
It is not clear, however, that this is the case. It could also be
that pathological liars know precisely what they are doing. Making up
stories and at the same time believing them is known as confabulation.
The term "pathological liar" is not an official clinical diagnosis
however psychiatrists may agree that pathological lying is often the
result of a mental disorder or low self-esteem.
**************************************
" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident
within them; for God made it evident to them. " Ro. 1:18.19 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
bob young
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
old man joe wrote:
| Quote: |
using their own ' science ' as the means to find a reality which
makes sense only to them, the Evolutionist will not use this same
science in his own daily life.
this just shows the folly of the ' science ' used to concoct the
thinking that the sum total of lies equal truth.
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.
|
.............all this shows is that religion can only be
promulgated by using fables, myth and cute stories.
Try harder ................TRY FACTS
You can have every atheist disappear in a puff of smoke
right now - just have your god put in an appearance - you
know like the way you crackpots claim 'He' had one on one
with Moses on that mountain.
Was Moses a prophet or a charlatan? Did he come down off
that mountain and lie thru his teeth ? YOU decide, since he
chose not to take any witnesses with him.
You see atheists rely on logic, not hearsay
| Quote: |
how elements that are not alive and never will be alive initiated
life in themselves is simply not worth answering in the Evolutionists
' science '. the elements making up the Evolutionists human body are
not alive; were never alive and never will be alive... he is alive
only because the Living God made him alive.
this, they can't escape.... that's why they don't want to give an
answer of how the elements of their body are not alive yet they, the
whole person, are alive... the dodging of answering this basic part of
their mighty Evolutionary science scheme exposes them for what they
are... pathological liars.
an excerpt from Wikipedia :
A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her
stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people. It may
be that a pathological liar is different from a normal liar in that a
pathological liar believes the lie he or she is telling to be true---
at least in public--- and is "playing" the role. He or she sometimes
is seen to have a serious mental problem that needs to be rectified.
It is not clear, however, that this is the case. It could also be
that pathological liars know precisely what they are doing. Making up
stories and at the same time believing them is known as confabulation.
The term "pathological liar" is not an official clinical diagnosis
however psychiatrists may agree that pathological lying is often the
result of a mental disorder or low self-esteem.
**************************************
" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident
within them; for God made it evident to them. " Ro. 1:18.19 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 21, 2:32 pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
old man joe wrote:
using their own ' science ' as the means to find a reality which
makes sense only to them, the Evolutionist will not use this same
science in his own daily life.
this just shows the folly of the ' science ' used to concoct the
thinking that the sum total of lies equal truth.
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.
|
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.
| Quote: |
............all this shows is that religion can only be
promulgated by using fables, myth and cute stories.
Try harder ................TRY FACTS
You can have every atheist disappear in a puff of smoke
right now - just have your god put in an appearance - you
know like the way you crackpots claim 'He' had one on one
with Moses on that mountain.
Was Moses a prophet or a charlatan? Did he come down off
that mountain and lie thru his teeth ? YOU decide, since he
chose not to take any witnesses with him.
You see atheists rely on logic, not hearsay
how elements that are not alive and never will be alive initiated
life in themselves is simply not worth answering in the Evolutionists
' science '. the elements making up the Evolutionists human body are
not alive; were never alive and never will be alive... he is alive
only because the Living God made him alive.
this, they can't escape.... that's why they don't want to give an
answer of how the elements of their body are not alive yet they, the
whole person, are alive... the dodging of answering this basic part of
their mighty Evolutionary science scheme exposes them for what they
are... pathological liars.
an excerpt from Wikipedia :
A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her
stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people. It may
be that a pathological liar is different from a normal liar in that a
pathological liar believes the lie he or she is telling to be true---
at least in public--- and is "playing" the role. He or she sometimes
is seen to have a serious mental problem that needs to be rectified.
It is not clear, however, that this is the case. It could also be
that pathological liars know precisely what they are doing. Making up
stories and at the same time believing them is known as confabulation.
The term "pathological liar" is not an official clinical diagnosis
however psychiatrists may agree that pathological lying is often the
result of a mental disorder or low self-esteem.
**************************************
" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident
within them; for God made it evident to them. " Ro. 1:18.19 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 22, 2:17 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 21, 2:32 pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
old man joe wrote:
using their own ' science ' as the means to find a reality which
makes sense only to them, the Evolutionist will not use this same
science in his own daily life.
this just shows the folly of the ' science ' used to concoct the
thinking that the sum total of lies equal truth.
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.
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.
|
I got exposed to creationism while at uni and was not impressed with
some of it's rhetoric such as it's lower-storey/upper-storey
apologetics (i.e. if you're not a creationist, your theological
superstructure is flawed).
| Quote: |
If that's what you thought, then you never looked looked before and must
have only listened to creationists and their allied deniers.
|
I've kept away from evolution/creation debates over the years since I
had no interest in this area. Consequently I don't consider myself up
to speed with the primary arguments.
| Quote: |
Some "missing links" like Archeopteryx have been known since the 1800s.
|
Yep. That's what the podcast declared.
Thanks for that. It looks like a good read.
I've recently seen a doco with scientists in some remote part of China
where they've found the missing link from non-flowering plants to
flowered plants.
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
roymock@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 21, 2:32 pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
old man joe wrote:
using their own ' science ' as the means to find a reality which
makes sense only to them, the Evolutionist will not use this same
science in his own daily life.
this just shows the folly of the ' science ' used to concoct the
thinking that the sum total of lies equal truth.
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.
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.
|
If that's what you thought, then you never looked looked before and must
have only listened to creationists and their allied deniers.
Some "missing links" like Archeopteryx have been known since the 1800s.
Go look at this webiste and and it will give you lots of examples of
transitional fossils (a.k.a. "missing links"):
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html>: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pastor Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com
spake thusly:
| Quote: |
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.
--
It's hard to stumble when you're down on your knees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Randy ®
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On 6/22/2008 8:04 AM, Pastor Dave wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:59:59 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com
spake thusly:
On Jun 22, 6:27 pm, 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!
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.
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.
Furthermore, reconstruction does not mean all of
the bones were present. 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.
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.
Other examples are given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
which I take to be macroevolutions.
First of all, "Wikipedia" is edited by the public.
So basically, anything they want to say, they say
and you think it's an actual encyclopedia. But
even if it were one, that does not make it true.
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!
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.
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.
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
They also purposely don't tell you about all of the
differences between birds and dinosaurs, such as
the lung structure, hollow bones, they way it breathes,
etc., etc.. It is flat out impossible!
But for people like you, all you seem to need for proof is,
"They said so and hey, look at the cool drawings that jump
all of the millions and billions of steps in between the two,
which means they proved it!"
“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.”
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.
You're welcome, but if you don't know, why are you
so quick to jump on their bandwagon and claim they
actually have transitionals, when you don't even know
what is required to declare them such? Could it be
that you are eager to join the crowd, because you
were taught that it's ridiculous to question evolution?
Could it be because people tend to worship atheistic
scientists and treat them like gods who can never
be wrong and you don't wish to have to defend God?
Could it also be that you just want the easy path?
After all, isn't it amazing that you quickly, without
knowledge, claim that what some web page says
is true and find yourself arguing with Christians,
instead of those who mock God's word?
"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and
broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there
are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate
and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there
are few who find it." - Matthew 7:13-14
The article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
says that scientists and creationists use macroevolution
and microevolution terms differently.
That is true today, because after being repeatedly
embarrassed, evolutionists have tried to redefine
the word "macroevolution" to mean microevolution,
so that when they hold up examples of macroevolution,
they can falsely claim that they have proved that
macroevolution occurs. This is a fact and it is just
like they try to do with the two terms, "abiogenesis"
and "spontaneous generation", which are indeed
the same thing, as a scientific dictionary will state.
But ever since spontaneous generation was debunked,
they now try to claim that abiogenesis is a totally
different thing. They also now try to claim that
abiogenesis is not part of evolution, because they
are embarrassed that abiogenesis was debunked
as well. Life can only come from life, period and
they know that.
You also assume that web pages written by biased
evolutionists, who are nobodies and are just like
and often are, the atheists who post in these groups,
are true. Why would you do that?
Abiogenesis is based on a claim a long time ago,
that since maggots were seen on rotting meat
that was left out, that life was springing from the
dead meat. Of course, now we know that this is
not true, but evolutionists, in their embarrassment,
try to claim that abiogenesis is not based on that
faulty conclusion, when it most certainly is and
they know it! But they hang onto it, because
it's all they've got! But keep cornering them
and you will see how quickly they insult you
and try to turn the tables and they will never,
never, answer your direct questions by showing
proof for their position!
Of course, then comes the claim of, "science doesn't
prove anything", to dodge the request for proof,
since they claim it's proved. So when you corner
them on what they claim, they try to pretend they're
backing off and saying, "It's just as proved as gravity".
In other words, it's the straw man that says that if you
dispute it, then you're disputing gravity. <chuckle
Now ask them to prove that it's just as proved as
gravity and more insults fly out.
This is the game they play, but all they will ever
show you, is microevolution and example that
they claim are macroevolution, but cannot prove
them to be such.
All they need to show, is a chain of fossils, that start
with one kind and end up with another. And no,
that does not mean two drawings and then imagining
all of the steps in between! Imagination is not the
same as scientific data that proves macroevolution!
And if it's so certain that it happens, then they
would not have to offer their imagination as their
best proof! :)
The truth is, that in years of requesting a single chain,
they have not provided one to anyone, ever, anywhere!
So they claim that we wouldn't have the fossils anyway,
because they would decay, etc..
Darwin said that fossils are what would prove evolution.
There is no other way! They don't have them!
Darwin also said, well over 100 years ago, that the thing
that would destroy his idea, is if the fossils were not found.
Guess what? They haven't been and yet, people are
hanging on to it!
And don't let anyone fool you! His book sold like hot cakes
without any evidence, because people wanted to reject
God and they weren't shy about admitting it! They do
the same thing, for the same reason today!
And isn't it interesting how many of them told me I never
read Darwin's book (when I actually did) and then, when
I pointed out what he said, then, all of the sudden, they
didn't subscribe to his idea about evolution. So why bring
up his book then? Hello???
They claim that man and ape came from a common ancestor.
But when you ask them to show it to you, they are forced to
admit that they don't have it. When you tell them that it
means that they then can't prove what they claimed, they
then say, "Maybe it was a sea monkey and that's why we
don't have any fossils from it yet.".
Yes, they actually say that!!! And notice that what they
throw out there is "maybe", "could be", etc., etc.. That
does not equal proof! That equals imagination!
Evolutionists assume it's true and proceed from there!
Yet they try to criticize Christians, claiming we do that!
chuckle
Science REQUIRES that one of the two following happens:
1) Direct observation - Never happened for macroevolution.
2) Repeated experimentation with repeatable results. -
Never happened for macroevolution.
Therefore, it is NOT science!
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" .
And that is true! A creature cannot do what it does not
already have the programming to do! These idiot, moron
evolutionists claim macroevolution and at the same time,
claim that we can only do what our DNA allows us to!
Evolution is a joke! It is laughable! And I am familiar
with the various sciences involved and I have indeed
researched this for years and I have indeed had many
debates (many, many) with atheists and never, not once,
was any of them able to do anything more than try to
turn it around and claim that I have to prove that it
did not happen! That is the sum total of their proof
for evolution! "Prove that it did not happen.". That's it!
They will keep trying to argue in circles and hate me,
because they know I see through it!
Their supposed "unbiased, scientific discussions" turn
into, "Prove God exists!" and "Prove that a bunch of
small changes cannot turn into a macroevolution!".
This is all they have, dude! trust God! He is true!
And btw, remember, that the evolutionist thinks so
highly of himself, yet, he fails to realize that if indeed
evolution is true, it means that man is not the last
step and is just a piece of a chain!
And this means that those who claim to believe the Bible,
do not believe it, which should be obvious anyway, but
the point is, that man is not the last step and so, the
Bible isn't true, since it says that it is man that God
came to save, when in reality, millions more of types
of creatures will be evolved in our "chain".
But hey, they shouldn't let the fact that this "chain"
doesn't exist stop them, right? And why let the fact
that the Bible says the opposite of evolution stop one
from claiming to be a good Christian, right? After all,
who cares if evolution says that Jesus would have
been nothing more than a made over monkey, right?
|
The fact is, 1 Corinthians 1 says spiritual truths are foolish to
the lost, and that all they are capable of doing is oppose that
which they know to be God's will (Rom. 8:7). Since the gospel is
the only means by which God will impart saving faith to an
individual, trying to outwit, or reason away an atheist, is just
handing them the mike, and inviting them to rail against the word
of God.
--
©2007 www.pulpitfire.com, pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. ? 2 Corinthians 10:5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr. House
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 22, 11:37 am, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
And btw, remember, that the evolutionist thinks so
highly of himself, yet, he fails to realize that if indeed
evolution is true, it means that man is not the last
step and is just a piece of a chain!
And this means that those who claim to believe the Bible,
do not believe it, which should be obvious anyway, but
the point is, that man is not the last step and so, the
Bible isn't true, since it says that it is man that God
came to save, when in reality, millions more of types
of creatures will be evolved in our "chain".
But hey, they shouldn't let the fact that this "chain"
doesn't exist stop them, right? And why let the fact
that the Bible says the opposite of evolution stop one
from claiming to be a good Christian, right? After all,
who cares if evolution says that Jesus would have
been nothing more than a made over monkey, right?
|
You are responding to Dave's character attacks and strawman
arguments. Do you think such tactics are legitimate?
| Quote: |
The fact is, 1 Corinthians 1 says spiritual truths are foolish to
the lost, and that all they are capable of doing is oppose that
which they know to be God's will (Rom. 8:7).
|
Romans 8 is a great chapter. It starts off with "Therefore there is
now no condemnation for those in Christ . . ."
Would you condemn those in Christ who also believe in evolution? I'm
afraid we are not much like the picture Dave painted.
| Quote: |
Since the gospel is
the only means by which God will impart saving faith to an
individual, trying to outwit, or reason away an atheist, is just
handing them the mike, and inviting them to rail against the word
of God.
|
I thank God that I am not an atheist.
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
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:59:59 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com
spake thusly:
On Jun 22, 6:27 pm, 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!
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.
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.
|
No, Davey, it's never been debunked. The fossil series of Hyracotherium,
Mesohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus and Equus s one of the best example
of evolution and transition species.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, reconstruction does not mean all of
the bones were present. 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.
|
No. Scientists do not take "artistic liberties" beause taking liberties
is not science. Science is about precision.
| 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.
|
Yes Davey, tehre are. Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx, Rodhocetus and
Ardipithecus are good examples.
| Quote: |
Other examples are given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
which I take to be macroevolutions.
First of all, "Wikipedia" is edited by the public.
So basically, anything they want to say, they say
and you think it's an actual encyclopedia. But
even if it were one, that does not make it true.
|
Wikipedia may be a secondary source at best, however it has *numerous*
links to primary sources. A recent study has shown that the overall
effect of public editing and reediting is that Wikipeda is as reliable
as Encyclopaedica Britannica.
| 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 never debate anything Davey. You make baseless assertions with no proof.
| 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.
|
You know that transitional fossils, like the ones I named above, have
been pointed out to you *counteless* time sin that past. That you choose
to ignore them makes you a liar.
| Quote: |
As one example that you had mentioned, which was
archaeopteryx, that is nothing but a perching bird.
|
Obviously you don;t know squar about Archeopteryx then. How many
perching bird have a long bony tail, three clawed fingers, jaws with
sharp teeth and the so-called killing claw? No birds today have those,
but deinonychosaurs did. Deinonychosaurs also had feathers.
That you would willingly ignore all these difference and say
Archeopteryx is nothing but a perching bird means that you are a liar.
| Quote: |
I will quote Feduccia a few times, as he is an expert
in the fields required.
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails.†- Alan Feduccia
|
Cite your source, please. You've been shown to be a quote-miner and
context-twister in the past.
| Quote: |
They also purposely don't tell you about all of the
differences between birds and dinosaurs, such as
the lung structure, hollow bones, they way it breathes,
etc., etc.. It is flat out impossible!
|
Also flat out impossible that there shoudfl be transtionals like
Protoavis or Archeopteryx, too, eh? *snort*
| Quote: |
But for people like you, all you seem to need for proof is,
"They said so and hey, look at the cool drawings that jump
all of the millions and billions of steps in between the two,
which means they proved it!"
|
Funny - isn't that th same type of "proof" use by Creationists? "It's
the Bible!"
| Quote: |
“Archaeopteryx was clearly a well developed bird,
with true feathers.†- Alan Feduccia
|
Again, cite please.
Why is it that Creationists so rarely ever provide cites for their
quotes? Could it be because when they do they can be shown so often to
be taking those quote out of context?
| Quote: |
“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.â€
|
Not only did you not say where this supposed quote is from, you didn't
even say who it is by, which makes it worse than useless. Not exactly a
plus fro your argument.
| Quote: |
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.
|
There is absolutely *no* distinction. The terms "micro-evolution" and
"macro-evolution" were invented by creationists. So that they could
allow adaptation (like how bacteria can adapt and become immune to
penicillin) yet still be able to deny speciation. The thing is, they've
never been able to show that there is some type of barrier to the
accumulation of many small changes that add up to speciation.
Don't believe a thing "Pastor" Dave says about science or evolution.
| Quote: |
The article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
says that scientists and creationists use macroevolution
and microevolution terms differently.
That is true today, because after being repeatedly
embarrassed, evolutionists have tried to redefine
the word "macroevolution" to mean microevolution,
so that when they hold up examples of macroevolution,
they can falsely claim that they have proved that
macroevolution occurs. This is a fact and it is just
like they try to do with the two terms, "abiogenesis"
and "spontaneous generation", which are indeed
the same thing, as a scientific dictionary will state.
But ever since spontaneous generation was debunked,
they now try to claim that abiogenesis is a totally
different thing. They also now try to claim that
abiogenesis is not part of evolution, because they
are embarrassed that abiogenesis was debunked
as well. Life can only come from life, period and
they know that.
|
Th eonly ones redefining are Creationists.
| Quote: |
You also assume that web pages written by biased
evolutionists, who are nobodies and are just like
and often are, the atheists who post in these groups,
are true. Why would you do that?
|
A two lie sin one! First, the conflation of atheism with evolution. The
greate majority of Christians, like myself, accept evolutionary theory
as the best (and only) scientific explanation of the facts we see in
biology today. The second lie is the implication that all everything an
atheist says s by definition is biased and unreliable. Logically that
same suspicion of bias should also fall upon creationists as well. Why
would you believe "Pastor" Dave?
Which would you prefer to trust? Creationists who are trying to force
everything into an a priori assumption of Biblical Literalism and who
are well known for ignoring the facts? Or actual scientists who do
actual research and go where the results lead them, willing to admit
when the data shows their assumptiosn to be wrong?
| Quote: |
Abiogenesis is based on a claim a long time ago,
that since maggots were seen on rotting meat
that was left out, that life was springing from the
dead meat. Of course, now we know that this is
not true, but evolutionists, in their embarrassment,
try to claim that abiogenesis is not based on that
faulty conclusion, when it most certainly is and
they know it! But they hang onto it, because
it's all they've got! But keep cornering them
and you will see how quickly they insult you
and try to turn the tables and they will never,
never, answer your direct questions by showing
proof for their position!
|
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. How many times has that
been explained to you?
[...snip all the rest of Dave's baseless claims...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:04:24 -0400, Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in
<mvgs54lnlv3mgir98p5086ps2a7grkp00g@4ax.com> :
| Quote: |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:59:59 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com
spake thusly:
On Jun 22, 6:27 pm, 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!
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.
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?
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| Quote: |
Other examples are given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
which I take to be macroevolutions.
First of all, "Wikipedia" is edited by the public.
So basically, anything they want to say, they say
and you think it's an actual encyclopedia. But
even if it were one, that does not make it true.
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.
| 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?
| 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?
| 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.
| 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.
Theropod dinosaurs had hollow bones.
| Quote: |
they way it breathes,
etc., etc..
|
You know how dinosaurs breathed?
| Quote: |
It is flat out impossible!
|
Why?
| Quote: |
But for people like you, all you seem to need for proof is,
"They said so and hey, look at the cool drawings that jump
all of the millions and billions of steps in between the two,
which means they proved it!"
|
On the other hand, some of us have examined the evidence.
| Quote: |
“Archaeopteryx was clearly a well developed bird,
with true feathers.” - Alan Feduccia
|
Actually, it's not that clear, since it lacked several features that
all living birds have.
| Quote: |
“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.”
|
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. Beyond doubt, it is
the most widely known and illustrated animal--a perfectly
preserved Darwinian intermediate, 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. Page 29.
Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and
they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould,
so it doesn't bother me a bit. 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. The corn in Mexico, originally the
size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to
modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know
what is.
- Alan Feduccia, in Svitil, K. A. 2003. Plucking Apart the
Dino-Birds. Discover 24(2):16.
| Quote: |
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.
You're welcome, but if you don't know, why are you
so quick to jump on their bandwagon and claim they
actually have transitionals, when you don't even know
what is required to declare them such? Could it be
that you are eager to join the crowd, because you
were taught that it's ridiculous to question evolution?
|
It's certainly foolish to ignore or distort the evidence for it.
| Quote: |
Could it be because people tend to worship atheistic
scientists and treat them like gods who can never
be wrong and you don't wish to have to defend God?
|
Who treats scientists like gods?
| Quote: |
Could it also be that you just want the easy path?
|
Maybe he accepts the evidence.
| Quote: |
After all, isn't it amazing that you quickly, without
knowledge, claim that what some web page says
is true and find yourself arguing with Christians,
instead of those who mock God's word?
|
What about arguing with Christians who are unaware of the evidence, or
just lie about it?
[snip the rest] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
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.
The article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution says that
scientists and creationists use macroevolution and microevolution
terms differently.
|
They do. You will find that this false distinction between "micro-" and
"macro-" evolution is used by creationists to allow the small changes of
adaptation yet deny things like speciation.
If a biologist were to use those two terms, them "macro-" evolution
would simply be nothing more than lots of "micrro-" evolutionary changes
all added together. There is no difference between the two.
You will also find that creationists make the claim of a magic dividing
line that would prevent the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes
into "macro-" changes. Yet somehow, they never get around to explaining
what that dividing line is or how it would function. Of course, baseless
claims are the bread of creationists. Quote-mining is their butter.
| Quote: |
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" .
|
I can give you six examples off the top of my head.
The primrose Oenothera gigas developed as a tetraploid mutant from the
Evening Primroses (O. lamarckiana) that were being used by botanist Hugo
deVries in his hybridization experiments. That O. gigas exists is an
empirical fact. That O. gigas and O. lamarckiana cannot produce fertile
seeds on cross-pollination is an empirical fact. That gigas could self
pollinate is an empirical fact.
That's 1.
Culex molestus is the London Underground Mosquito which DNA analysis
shows is most closely related to C. pipiens. All attempts to get pipiens
and molestus mosquitoes to crossbreed failed - the females never
produced eggs after cross-matings. Obviously this differentiation could
only have happened since 1863. C. molestus is an empirical fact.
That's 2.
When the primroses Primula verticillata and P. floribunda are crossed,
they normally produce sterile hybrids that cannot pollinate. On three
attempts L. Digby produced some fertile crosses that were tetraploid
mutants and named them P. kewensis. P. kewensis cannot cross pollinate
with either of it's ancestral species. This is empirical fact.
That's 3.
Those are the three I mentioned originally. Let me give you a few more
observed events of speciation.
Goatsbeards (Tragopogon spp.), also known as Salsify, are native to
Eurasia, but in the early 1900s three species (T. dubius, T. pratensis
and T. porrifolius) were introduced to North America where they are now
common weeds on urban waste ground. In the 1950s in Idaho and
Washington, botanists found two new species of Tragopogon that did not
exist in Eurasia. As it turned out, Tragopogon miscellus is a tetraploid
hybrid of T. dubius and T. pratensis, and Tragopogon mirus is a
tetraploid hybrid of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Neither T. miscellus
nor T. mirus will successfully pollinate with their ancestral species,
making this not one but *two* speciation events.
That's 4 and 5.
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis
acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were
allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four
pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test
organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach
area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and
P2, were found. Tests were performed on these two populations and the
Woods Hole population for both postmating and premating isolation. To
test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from
crosses were successfully reared. The Woods Hole N. acuminata population
was unable to successfully produce offspring when cross-bred with the
two wild populations of N. acuminata.
That's 6.
Why was I able to gve them to you off the top of my head? Because I have
given them many, many times in the past (and not just in this newsgroup).
Tell me, what do you think of a person who has been given evidence which
shows their claims are wrong, yet they still keep repeating those claims?
See also : <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
traveller
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 22, 4:27 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
--
It's hard to stumble when you're down on your knees.
|
What can not be defined can not be elimated...and the search CONTINUES! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
traveller
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing ther |
|
|
On Jun 23, 7:12 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
| | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
