| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2005 05:27:07 PM |
| Object: |
26 Proofs of Macroevolution - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
On August 31st 2005, "Pastor Dave", aka "Ananias917", aka
Pathologically Dumb (PD for short) challenged evolutionists to prove
macroevolution (http://tinyurl.com/cql8a, hereinafter known as "Macro
Thread"). In an atheist news group!
If he wants evidence for it, if he understands the science as he claims
and can discuss it on its own terms, then why is he not brave enough to
offer this challenge in a science group such a talk.origins? Why make
a science challenge in an atheist group? He's a coward, that's why.
He's incompetent in the subject and he knows it. He thought he could
get away with it in a.a. He was wrong.
Since the coward couldn't even find the courtesy to define
macroevolution for the purposes of his thread, or even state what he
would accept as proof, here's the definition of macroevolution from
Merriam Webster:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=macroevolution
"evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in
species formation"
And here is a list of others, nearly every one of which includes
"species" as part of the definition:
http://tinyurl.com/au38q
So, in short, macroevolution is genetic change leading to speciation or
something beyond.
Macroevolution proven
(Note that these examples are the result of the hard work of real
scientists. The only reason no credit whatsoever is given here is that
PD is scared to death of references and will use them as a pathetic
excuse to run away.)
Here are twenty-six proofs explained in my own words, with no
references or cut and paste. Now "Pastor Dave" has no more excuses
left, no place to hide, nowhere to turn, no mroe straw men:
Example A.
Fossil primate species Pelycodus ralstoni changed into two separate
species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus in an unbroken
fossil transition. The two later became even more distinct, and the
descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of
genus Notharctus.
The evolution of a new genus is macroevolution proven.
Example B.
Two species of planktonic foraminifera, Globigerinoides trilobus and
Orbulina universa, shared a common ancestor in the early Miocene. The
first appearance of 0. universa (~15 million years ago) was preceded by
an increase in the morphological variance of the ancestral lineage,
including the origin of several new and short-ranging morphospecies.
Biological speciation (cladogenesis) occurred priorly. Oxygen isotopic
ratios of G. trilobus and 0. universa indicate that the entire
evolutionary transition took place within mixed layer habitats similar
to those occupied by modern G. trilobus. The origin of Orbulina was a
case of sympatric speciation at shallow depths in the open ocean and
can be traced in an unbroken line.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example C.
An uninterrupted sequence of freshwater snail fossils in Pliocene
deposits in Yugoslavia show an unbroken sequence where one species
changes into another over a period of seven million years.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example D.
Eocoelia is a small brachiopod (this one is commonly known as a "lamp
shell") from the lower Silurian. It can be found all over the world,
including in Britain, Nova Scotia, Pennsylvania USA, Iowa USA, Siberia,
Norway, and South America. In several such places, a succession of 4
species has been found consistently over wide areas (North America and
Europe for example).
Data came from fossils gathered at thirteen different depths covering
about ten million years. There is a smooth transition that starts at
one species and ends at a different species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example E.
In the nineteenth century Spartina alternifolia was found in Townsend
harbor in southern England, it is a native of the Americas and
presumably seeds were transferred in a boat's bilge.
There already existed a European species S. maritima. Early in the
20th century a sterile hybrid of these two was found and was called
Spartina townsendii. This went through a process of diploidization
(duplication of chromosome pairs) and became a new sexually reproducing
species known as Spartina anglica
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example F.
A species of grass, Anthoxanthum odoratum, growing in plots in the Park
Grass Experiment at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, UK.,
was originally set up in 1856 to test the reactions of meadow
vegetation to
different fertilizer applications. There has been a shift in flowering
time of A. odoratum at the border between adjacent experimental plots.
Crucially, this 'inverse cline' of flowering is a signature of the
first steps along a particular road to speciation, that has been
predicted by modelling studies exploring how natural selection against
hybrids could contribute to reproductive isolation between populations
in proximity. It suggests that some species within adjacent plots in
the Park Grass Experiment are not exchanging genetic material via
pollination as frequently as would be expected. The genetic outcome of
this reproductive isolation was tested by using Inter Simple-Sequence
Repeat (ISSR) markers, which confirmed that there had been genetic
divergence between adjacent plots at these neutral marker sites.
Reproductive isolation and genetic divergence, the first phases of
speciation, had been confirmed.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example G.
In the lakes of East Africa, fish of the family Cichlidae have radiated
extensively from one or a very few original founder species. At least
1500 species of fish have arisen from a common ancestor in the last 10
million years. Within Lake Malawi over 700 species have arisen within
the last 2 million years. A number of factors are at work, including
trophic specialization and sexual selection.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example H.
Chorthippus brunnaeus and C. biguttulus are all but indistinguishable
grasshoppers, but they do not interbreed in the wild and so are
different species. However, they are so recently (in geologic terms)
separated that they *can* interbreed. They're induced to do so by the
temperature of their head, as determined from the rate or frequency of
their chirping. If the female is artificially warmed or cooled to the
temperature of the other species, she will breed with it, but normally
in the natural world, they do not breed. Reproductive isolation is the
first step toward speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example I.
There is more than a dozen species of Darwin's finch on the Galapagos
Islands. There's some disagreement depending on how some intriguing
populations are classified. There is even disagreement about which
genera the species are divided into. Traditionally they are placed
into four groups: the tree finches (Camarhynchus), the warbler finch
(Certhidea), the ground finches (Geospiza) and the Cocos finch
(Pinaroloxias). It's current practice to class the Camarhynchus as
three genera: Camarhynchus (the tree finches), Platyspiza (the
vegetarian finch) and Cactospiza (the woodpecker and mangrove finches).
Some believe that all of the finches should be united as 14 species
in the single genus.
No one disagrees, not even the creationists, that the finches all
evolved from one founder species. Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example J.
On the Faeroe Islands exists the house mouse which was transported
there by humans within the last quarter millennium. There are now
several species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example K.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
strong intra-strain mating preferences.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example L.
A species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from
the original stock.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example M.
Three species of goatsbeard flower were introduced to the USA from
Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades the
populations expanded and began to encounter other such species in the
American West. When mixed populations occurred, the species hybridized
to produce sterile hybrid offspring, but in the late forties two new
species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the
new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced
fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate
species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plant
from which it had evolved.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example N.
There are two distinct strains of Rhagoletis pomonella (apple maggot
fly), one in the apple, the other in the hawthorn, which breed at
different times and therefore do not interbreed in nature. The fly is
not found in Europe, but the apple is an import from Europe. This is,
therefore, an example of speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example O.
Theodosius Dobzhansky found that Drosophila paulistorum had started to
speciate in his lab.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example P.
In 1905, Hugo de Vries found a variant among his plants. Oenothera
lamarckiana has a chromosome count of 14, yet a variant in his lab had
a chromosome count of 28. De Vries found that he was unable to breed
this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example Q.
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P.
floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a
few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was
named P. kewensis. It was noticed that spontaneous hybrids of P.
verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three
occasions: 1905, 1923 and 1926.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example R.
In 1950 it was demonstrated that two species in the genus Tragopogon
were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. T. miscellus found in
a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius
and T. pratensis. T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington
was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius.
Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus originated
independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho
at least three times. The same study also shows multiple origins for
T. micellus.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example S.
When the radish, Raphanus sativus, was crossed with the cabbage,
Brassica oleracea sterile hybrid were produced. Some unreduced gametes
were formed in the hybrids which allowed for the production of seed.
Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They
were not interfertile with either parental species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example T.
A prediction of the Theory of Evolution proven: A species of hemp
nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a
natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G.
speciosa. The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G.
tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example U.
In 1969, almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties
of maize was demonstrated. Not only were the varieties distinguishable
by seed color, but other genetic markers allowed hybrid identification.
The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest
neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was
applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that
showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years
seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The
strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only
ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth
year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After
five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from
35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow
strain.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example V.
In 1964 five or six individuals of Nereis acuminata were collected in
Long Beach Harbor, California, and allowed to grow into a population of
thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were
transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Over 20 years
later, when comparisons were made with wild populations, the Woods Hole
population had already shown itself at the start of reproductive
isolation. Reproduction isolation is speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example W.
Scientific surveillance has shown that compatibility of mosquito
strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the Rickettsia-like
microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the
microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same
strain of microbe are interfertile. Reproduction isolation is
speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example X.
In 1983 the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella
pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation was
reported. It arose as a result of growing the unicellular green alga
in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food
for a flagellate predator growing in the second stage. Due to the
failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within
five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came
to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32
cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has
persisted in culture for about a decade and has been keyed out using a
number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus
Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
Generation is macroevolution proven.
Example Y.
In 1990 it was reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a
major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate
predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod.
After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of
long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Multicellularity
has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation. In a
1994 study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the
production of chains of bacterial cells.
Morphological change is macroevolution.
Example Z.
Elephants from the tropical forests of Africa are morphologically
distinct from savannah or bush elephants. Dart-biopsy samples from 195
free-ranging African elephants in 21 populations were examined for DNA
sequence variation in four nuclear genes (1732 base pairs).
Phylogenetic distinctions between African forest elephant and savannah
elephant populations corresponded to 58% of the difference in the same
genes between elephant genera Loxodonta (African) and Elephas (Asian).
Large genetic distance, multiple genetically fixed nucleotide site
differences, morphological and habitat distinctions, and extremely
limited hybridization of gene flow between forest and savannah
elephants support the recognition and conservation management of two
African species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
And here's a reference to another 530 examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Conclusion:
PD dishonestly claims to understand science, but he's idiot enough to
demand proof! Anyone who *actually* understands science at all also
understands that science is not about proof, it's about understanding
nature. It's about observing nature and theorizing how it came to be
the way it is. The best theories - the ones which are accepted as
working "fact" - are the ones which explain all the evidence, which
can accommodate new evidence, which make testable predictions, and
which withstand the tests of time.
The Theory of Evolution is such a theory. It has been tested for 150
years and never once found wanting. It has withstood all the tests.
It has accommodated all the evidence. It has made many predictions
which have proven true.
The other interesting thing about Pastor Dave's lie that he understands
science, is that his entire behavior on this topic is unscientific!
This is starkly apparent in the above-referenced thread. He arrogantly
demands proof from others, yet offers not even a shred of support for
*any* statement he makes himself. This gives him leave to arrogantly
dismiss out-of-hand *everything* everyone else offers by nothing more
than gainsaying it!
Oh, he'll go back and forth endlessly over trivial issues, unrelated
issues, irrelevant issues, blathering mindlessly and insultingly and
not supporting a single thing he says, but you hit him with the very
proof he demands and he will run like a scared cat!
Watch him run from this thread. Here's a prediction: He absolutely
flat will not in any way, shape, or form whatseover even begin a
scientific discussion of any of these proofs. He will deny them
without supporting his denial in any way, shape or form, all the while
demanding ever more "proof" from adherents of the Theory of Evolution.
When he's called to task on his impotence, he will throw out insults
and run away. Let's see what happens, shall we?
"Pastor Dave" is completely unqualified (and unChristian) to judge, yet
he sets himself up as judge and jury, insisting the he be allowed to
define, in retrospect, what is proof, without ever sharing the
definition with anyone else. Even more than that, he has consistently
reneged on his promise to discuss the evidence with the submitter!
I've read all of his messages in that thread and not once does he ever
indulge in a scientific discussion with *anyone*.
If you ask him for a definition, he dismisses it derisively, insisting
that *he* posed the challenge, therefore *he* doesn't have to answer
any questions, not even reasonable ones addressing the terms of the
challenge. Either that or he will ignore your request completely.
It's the perfect fraud!
Despite my directly asking "Pastor Dave" what he would accept as proof,
and what his definition of "macroevolution" was for the purpose of his
thread, he never once had the guts to respond. He never responded
intelligently or without insult to any message I left. He never
addressed them at all until I had so bugged him with the massive weight
of evidence showing macroevolution that he was shamed into responding.
Then all he could do was dismiss it out of hand, with no science, no
support for his denial, no discussion of any sort, let alone
scientific, no rationale, only his own divine fiat! When the inadequcy
of his response was pointe dout to him, he ran away!
Here's a couple of things he plagiarized:
A. "A single cell is far more complex than the space shuttle and no one
would claim that the space shuttle made itself."
I've seen this several times on creationist web sites. I've never seen
the math to support it.
B. "...macroevolution to be science and putting it in text books and
associating it with science, does not make it scientific, any more than
beer becomes athletic simply because it's sold at football games."
He stole that one from Kent (don't-stop-me-if-you've-heard-this-lie)
Hovind, creationism's leading light(weight).
Look at this admission when someone started listing options for
existence:
Message: The universe came into existence at some point and will cease
to exist at some other point.
PD: That is scientific.
Where is the proof? Well there's actually less for this than there is
for macroevolution (although both are scientifically sound based on
available evidence), yet PD swallows this as fact and you'll never see
him start a thread demanding proof of it. Can you say "Flaming
Hypocrite"?!
But it gets worse! What does the hypocrite say shortly after this, on
Sep 13th? "Basically, the universe always existed and always will."!
Say what? He contradicted himself in the same thread, and he again
offers no support for his claim! This is the snivelling hypocrite who
demands absolute proof from others.
Watch him equivocate and squirm:
"Technically, even if I did, I still wouldn't be under any obligation,
since I state that is it my BELIEF that it is a fact."
(PD, Sep 1, 2005 Macro Thread)
Well what a piece of hypocrisy we have here! He claims he cannot be
held to the same standard he is holding unnamed (and unnamable, since
he cannot support his claims) evolutionists to, because he's stating
that it's his *belief* that his blind beliefs are a fact! But he lies.
On Septembr 2nd he made this statement more than once in response to a
message: "No evolution. An intelligent designer was involved.".
What's that if it isn't stating an absolute? Where is he qualifying
that statment of "fact"? Nowhere! PD is a hypocrite.
Now it so happens that the truth is that evolutionists are also in this
position, except that their belief is not blind. Their belief is
supported by 150 years of solid science, which is why it is treated as
fact for all practical purposes (with the unspoken caveat that it could
conceivably be proven false if sufficient valid contrary evidence were
found. None ever has been).
But PD absolutely cannot allow that. He won't allow them the leeway of
shorthand. He wants to be the sole author, arbiter and proscriber of
what they state and then call it a lie! He insists that they not be
allowed to say, "Macroevolution happens", he insists that they either
state that "Macroevolution has been established beyond reasonable doubt
by the weight of the evidence and by the lack of contrary ev idence
although that's with the unspoken caveat that it could conceivably be
proven false if sufficient valid contrary evidence ever shows up", or,
he insists, they must be declared liars!
Look at this idiotic, unsupported statement:
"Research shows that the farther we go back, the more complex out (sic)
languages were, not less. It has taken scholars today, decades to even
begin to decipher them. "
(PD, Sep 1, 2005 Macro Thread)
Another unsupported claim. Shall we open a thread and insist that he
supports this?! What a waste of time - we know he can't. He'll do
what he does best: run away form the truth.
The difficulty of deciphering languages (as opposed, for example, to
the Mayan knotted threads - or whosever they were) is not the
complexity of the language but the fact that we don't have any keys to
the language. Heiroglyphics were undecipherable until the Rosetta
stone was found. After that, they were a breeze. Nothing to do with
complexity. Everything to do with do common ground with existing known
languages.
The idiot doesn't have a clue. Look at the dumbass things he claims:
"I think God speaks through the simple and I just love the words of
Phoebe from the show "Friends", who put it so nicely, regarding
evolution, since one of the characters became a professor and taught
evolutionary theory as fact.
She said to him...
"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
"So if they say there is NO DOUBT, then they are obliged to provide
100% absolute proof, because
they say it is 100% absolutely true. That is the sum of my position."
(PD, Sep 1, 2005 Macro Thread)
Yes, folks, that's his idiot position. The "scientific refutation" of
the Theory of Evolution came from a "Friends" episode! Why is it no
suprise that PD watches that show?
How many times has PD been told that the **FACT** is that science isn't
done on TV?
The **FACT** is that science isn't done in popular books. The **FACT**
is that science isn't done in the media. The **FACT** is that science
isn't done in movies. The **FACT** is that science is done in the
field and in the lab, and in the minds of brilliant men and women of
all religions and all nationalities. The **FACT** is that science is
reported, with due humility, in refeered science journals the world
over by means of peer-reviewed papers which always leave open the
possibility of error and the possibility of a conclusion or even an
entire theory being overthrown by new data.
PD doesn't have a clue about this because he doesn't understand
science. He can only grasp the media, the popular, often underreported
accounts of discoveries and status. He blindly thinks *this* is
science and he cannot understand why *that* science is (he blindly
believes) taught as fact in schools and colleges.
But what is taught in schools and colleges is the *current state of
science*, which is always amenable to adjustment as new data arrive and
it's always out of date.
He doesn't even know his own Bible:
"Man loves to do evil and then blame God for the results! "
(PD, Sep 1, 2005 Macro Thread)
But the fact is that the Bible says that the mythical god of that Bible
is responsible for evil - not humankind, and not the mythical "Satan".
In Isaiah 45, we read: "I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form
the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
LORD do all these things."
Look at this idiotic claim:
"Darwin didn't have such a degree and yet, you claim he is right. That
makes you a hypocrite, if I have no degree. It also shows your
hypocrisy in claiming that one would be required, to have an education
in the field."
("Pastor Dave", Sep 1st, Macro Thread).
"Pastor Dave" shows what a moron he is here by conveniently overlooking
the *fact* that Darwin didn't just express an opinion, he didn't
blindly, idiotically, robotically nay-say others. He worked for a
quarter of a century assembling his observations and evidence. He now
has 150 years of solid science supporting his soundly reasoned and
evidenced statements. "Pastor Dave" cannot reason. He cannot support
his statements, much elss discuss the science he so cluelessly seeks to
deride. He has no scientific backing for any claim he's made!
Here's a case in point:
"Microevolution happening has nothing to do with macroevolution and
claiming that microevolution adds up to macroevolution, is just that.
A claim. There is zero proof of that. " ("Pastor Dave", Sep 6th,
Macro Thread).
This is a lie, of course, but look at the hypocrisy here. He talks
about zero proof right after insisting that macroevolution is unrelated
to microevolution, but he himself offers not a shred of support for his
claim. Why? He *cannot* support his claim! The *FACT* is that
neither real scientists nor creation "scientists" have ever been able
to make a distinction between the two. Neither group has ever neen
able to show where one stops and the other starts (or fails to start),
and neither of the two groups has ever been able to find any barier
whatsoever in any genome to "macroevolution". Quite the contrary.
Every available piece of evidence ever dug out of the genome shows
convincingly that macroevolution cannot fail to happen given sufficient
time, as the 26 examples above have demosntrated.
It really is that simple.
This is the end of the macroevolution series. Scientists of all
nationalities and religions will continue to publish examples,
evidence, and proof of macroevoltuion in science journals the world
over, but "Pastor Dave" is now no logner worth any serious effort. He
is a discredited liar, hypocrite, coward and fraud. QED.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
17 Dec 2005 03:16:57 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
Scientists of all
nationalities and religions will continue to publish examples,
Science's >>> THOUSANDS <<< of FALSE gods they make up
willy nilly, are NOT proof of anything.
God already spoke of what men would do, claiming the creatures
make themselves, honoring creatures rather than giving credit
to the creator: the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
evidence, and proof of macroevoltuion in science journals the world
Are non-existant.
You have absolutely NO proof that your NOTHING god does
anything at all.
God simply makes whatever he wants to make, whenever he
wants to make the stuff... whatever it is... whenever he's
making it... God's made it... your "evolution" fairy tale
doesn't do anything.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
17 Dec 2005 12:11:28 PM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:43A3D5C6.37B1@For-God.net...
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
Learn some science and logic. You cannot "prove" a negative. It is just
acceptable
logic that if there is no "objective verifiable evidence" for somethings
existence it is
logical to assume it does not exist.
Scientists of all
nationalities and religions will continue to publish examples,
Science's >>> THOUSANDS <<< of FALSE gods they make up
willy nilly, are NOT proof of anything.
God already spoke of what men would do, claiming the creatures
make themselves, honoring creatures rather than giving credit
to the creator: the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
evidence, and proof of macroevoltuion in science journals the world
Are non-existant.
You have absolutely NO proof that your NOTHING god does
anything at all.
God simply makes whatever he wants to make, whenever he
wants to make the stuff... whatever it is... whenever he's
making it... God's made it... your "evolution" fairy tale
doesn't do anything.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 05:54:08 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:43A3D5C6.37B1@For-God.net...
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
Learn some science and logic.
===>Boatwrong is not capable of such a change. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
17 Dec 2005 12:39:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:11:28 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<XuYof.79$k76.13@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:43A3D5C6.37B1@For-God.net...
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
Learn some science and logic. You cannot "prove" a negative.
The man who makes leaky boats knows that, that is why he is so intent on
trying to make the defenders of science do something that is impossible.
Aside from pointless objections, he's got nothin'.
It is just acceptable logic that if there is no "objective
verifiable evidence" for somethings existence it is
logical to assume it does not exist.
But religious zealots don't like such logic, so they ignore it.
....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 05:39:22 PM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
===>What an idiotic statement.
Can you disprove BRAHMAN
"making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff."
How about EN-LIL? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 08:23:17 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
===>What an idiotic statement.
Can you disprove BRAHMAN
"making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff."
How about EN-LIL? -- L.
There you go getting all complex again! Boatwrong can't grasp these
things while his only functional brain cell is fully occupied making
excuses for his impotence! I doubt he's ever heard of those other gods
anyway, let alone imagined there might be more than one. Or as the
evidence suggests: none.
B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 10:47:38 PM |
|
|
Budikka wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
===>What an idiotic statement.
Can you disprove BRAHMAN
"making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff."
How about EN-LIL? -- L.
There you go getting all complex again! Boatwrong can't grasp these
things while his only functional brain cell is fully occupied making
excuses for his impotence! I doubt he's ever heard of those other gods
anyway, let alone imagined there might be more than one. Or as the
evidence suggests: none.
===>Good point.
Of course definitions also make a difference.
Einstein is quoted as saying he believes in
"Spinoza's God".
I think you would agree that THAT "God" does exist. ;-)
(Naturally, this would go waaaay over the head of Boatwrong). ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
17 Dec 2005 06:35:57 AM |
|
|
Any time you want to provide the science to rebut these, Boatwright (or
Pastor Dave, or any fundie moron), I'll be happy to go over all of them
with you.
Example A.
Fossil primate species Pelycodus ralstoni changed into two separate
species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus in an unbroken
fossil transition. The two later became even more distinct, and the
descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of
genus Notharctus.
The evolution of a new genus is macroevolution proven.
Example B.
Two species of planktonic foraminifera, Globigerinoides trilobus and
Orbulina universa, shared a common ancestor in the early Miocene. The
first appearance of 0. universa (~15 million years ago) was preceded by
an increase in the morphological variance of the ancestral lineage,
including the origin of several new and short-ranging morphospecies.
Biological speciation (cladogenesis) occurred priorly. Oxygen isotopic
ratios of G. trilobus and 0. universa indicate that the entire
evolutionary transition took place within mixed layer habitats similar
to those occupied by modern G. trilobus. The origin of Orbulina was a
case of sympatric speciation at shallow depths in the open ocean and
can be traced in an unbroken line.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example C.
An uninterrupted sequence of freshwater snail fossils in Pliocene
deposits in Yugoslavia show an unbroken sequence where one species
changes into another over a period of seven million years.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example D.
Eocoelia is a small brachiopod (this one is commonly known as a "lamp
shell") from the lower Silurian. It can be found all over the world,
including in Britain, Nova Scotia, Pennsylvania USA, Iowa USA, Siberia,
Norway, and South America. In several such places, a succession of 4
species has been found consistently over wide areas (North America and
Europe for example).
Data came from fossils gathered at thirteen different depths covering
about ten million years. There is a smooth transition that starts at
one species and ends at a different species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example E.
In the nineteenth century Spartina alternifolia was found in Townsend
harbor in southern England, it is a native of the Americas and
presumably seeds were transferred in a boat's bilge.
There already existed a European species S. maritima. Early in the
20th century a sterile hybrid of these two was found and was called
Spartina townsendii. This went through a process of diploidization
(duplication of chromosome pairs) and became a new sexually reproducing
species known as Spartina anglica
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example F.
A species of grass, Anthoxanthum odoratum, growing in plots in the Park
Grass Experiment at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, UK.,
was originally set up in 1856 to test the reactions of meadow
vegetation to
different fertilizer applications. There has been a shift in flowering
time of A. odoratum at the border between adjacent experimental plots.
Crucially, this 'inverse cline' of flowering is a signature of the
first steps along a particular road to speciation, that has been
predicted by modelling studies exploring how natural selection against
hybrids could contribute to reproductive isolation between populations
in proximity. It suggests that some species within adjacent plots in
the Park Grass Experiment are not exchanging genetic material via
pollination as frequently as would be expected. The genetic outcome of
this reproductive isolation was tested by using Inter Simple-Sequence
Repeat (ISSR) markers, which confirmed that there had been genetic
divergence between adjacent plots at these neutral marker sites.
Reproductive isolation and genetic divergence, the first phases of
speciation, had been confirmed.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example G.
In the lakes of East Africa, fish of the family Cichlidae have radiated
extensively from one or a very few original founder species. At least
1500 species of fish have arisen from a common ancestor in the last 10
million years. Within Lake Malawi over 700 species have arisen within
the last 2 million years. A number of factors are at work, including
trophic specialization and sexual selection.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example H.
Chorthippus brunnaeus and C. biguttulus are all but indistinguishable
grasshoppers, but they do not interbreed in the wild and so are
different species. However, they are so recently (in geologic terms)
separated that they *can* interbreed. They're induced to do so by the
temperature of their head, as determined from the rate or frequency of
their chirping. If the female is artificially warmed or cooled to the
temperature of the other species, she will breed with it, but normally
in the natural world, they do not breed. Reproductive isolation is the
first step toward speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example I.
There is more than a dozen species of Darwin's finch on the Galapagos
Islands. There's some disagreement depending on how some intriguing
populations are classified. There is even disagreement about which
genera the species are divided into. Traditionally they are placed
into four groups: the tree finches (Camarhynchus), the warbler finch
(Certhidea), the ground finches (Geospiza) and the Cocos finch
(Pinaroloxias). It's current practice to class the Camarhynchus as
three genera: Camarhynchus (the tree finches), Platyspiza (the
vegetarian finch) and Cactospiza (the woodpecker and mangrove finches).
Some believe that all of the finches should be united as 14 species
in the single genus.
No one disagrees, not even the creationists, that the finches all
evolved from one founder species. Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example J.
On the Faeroe Islands exists the house mouse which was transported
there by humans within the last quarter millennium. There are now
several species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example K.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
strong intra-strain mating preferences.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example L.
A species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from
the original stock.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example M.
Three species of goatsbeard flower were introduced to the USA from
Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades the
populations expanded and began to encounter other such species in the
American West. When mixed populations occurred, the species hybridized
to produce sterile hybrid offspring, but in the late forties two new
species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the
new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced
fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate
species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plant
from which it had evolved.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example N.
There are two distinct strains of Rhagoletis pomonella (apple maggot
fly), one in the apple, the other in the hawthorn, which breed at
different times and therefore do not interbreed in nature. The fly is
not found in Europe, but the apple is an import from Europe. This is,
therefore, an example of speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example O.
Theodosius Dobzhansky found that Drosophila paulistorum had started to
speciate in his lab.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example P.
In 1905, Hugo de Vries found a variant among his plants. Oenothera
lamarckiana has a chromosome count of 14, yet a variant in his lab had
a chromosome count of 28. De Vries found that he was unable to breed
this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example Q.
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P.
floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a
few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was
named P. kewensis. It was noticed that spontaneous hybrids of P.
verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three
occasions: 1905, 1923 and 1926.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example R.
In 1950 it was demonstrated that two species in the genus Tragopogon
were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. T. miscellus found in
a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius
and T. pratensis. T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington
was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius.
Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus originated
independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho
at least three times. The same study also shows multiple origins for
T. micellus.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example S.
When the radish, Raphanus sativus, was crossed with the cabbage,
Brassica oleracea sterile hybrid were produced. Some unreduced gametes
were formed in the hybrids which allowed for the production of seed.
Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They
were not interfertile with either parental species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example T.
A prediction of the Theory of Evolution proven: A species of hemp
nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a
natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G.
speciosa. The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G.
tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example U.
In 1969, almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties
of maize was demonstrated. Not only were the varieties distinguishable
by seed color, but other genetic markers allowed hybrid identification.
The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest
neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was
applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that
showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years
seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The
strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only
ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth
year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After
five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from
35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow
strain.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example V.
In 1964 five or six individuals of Nereis acuminata were collected in
Long Beach Harbor, California, and allowed to grow into a population of
thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were
transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Over 20 years
later, when comparisons were made with wild populations, the Woods Hole
population had already shown itself at the start of reproductive
isolation. Reproduction isolation is speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example W.
Scientific surveillance has shown that compatibility of mosquito
strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the Rickettsia-like
microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the
microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same
strain of microbe are interfertile. Reproduction isolation is
speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example X.
In 1983 the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella
pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation was
reported. It arose as a result of growing the unicellular green alga
in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food
for a flagellate predator growing in the second stage. Due to the
failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within
five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came
to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32
cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has
persisted in culture for about a decade and has been keyed out using a
number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus
Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
Generation is macroevolution proven.
Example Y.
In 1990 it was reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a
major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate
predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod.
After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of
long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Multicellularity
has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation. In a
1994 study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the
production of chains of bacterial cells.
Morphological change is macroevolution.
Example Z.
Elephants from the tropical forests of Africa are morphologically
distinct from savannah or bush elephants. Dart-biopsy samples from 195
free-ranging African elephants in 21 populations were examined for DNA
sequence variation in four nuclear genes (1732 base pairs).
Phylogenetic distinctions between African forest elephant and savannah
elephant populations corresponded to 58% of the difference in the same
genes between elephant genera Loxodonta (African) and Elephas (Asian).
Large genetic distance, multiple genetically fixed nucleotide site
differences, morphological and habitat distinctions, and extremely
limited hybridization of gene flow between forest and savannah
elephants support the recognition and conservation management of two
African species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
And here's a reference to another 530 examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Budikka
John, n., something that's regularly full of *****
Boatwright, n., a builder of empty vessels
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
17 Dec 2005 06:30:34 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
666 examples not enough for you?
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/e3f2b
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/b4brg
Examples 636-666 http://tinyurl.com/chfv2
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
26 examples proving macroevolution right here in this thread and you're
so stupid that you think you can get away with pretending there are
none?
I see mindless blather, but not a shred of scientific refutation.
You're just as impotent as Flaccid Dave. He arrogantly demands proof
(which I've given). You and he cannot rebut it and you cannot offer a
shred of of support for your claims. But then you're best known for
your childish lies, aren't you:
http://tinyurl.com/d5beb
http://tinyurl.com/9zqo9
http://tinyurl.com/bx7dn
http://tinyurl.com/beqs7
http://tinyurl.com/73lnw
http://tinyurl.com/9wg2r
http://tinyurl.com/8z2dd
http://tinyurl.com/96vzm
http://tinyurl.com/e2edb
http://tinyurl.com/cmrts
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
I don't need to disprove something which hasn't been established
outside of your own addled mind. *You're* the one asserting it.
*You're* the one who needs to provide the proof, otherwise it will
always be a myth, a fairy tale, won't it now?
The evidence agianst the existence of a god is massive. Here's 400
items, not one of which has been refuted or even rebutted by your side:
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 66-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 70-78 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 79-90 at: http://tinyurl.com/6aa8l
Parts 91-99 at: http://tinyurl.com/6xnhh
Parts 100-119 at: http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
Parts 120-139 at: http://tinyurl.com/bp8za
Parts 140-155 at: http://tinyurl.com/72vlr
Parts 156-170 at: http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb
Parts 171-174 at: http://tinyurl.com/8jcja
Parts 175-189 at: http://tinyurl.com/cuvxb
Parts 190-199 at: http://tinyurl.com/9uo6f
Parts 200-219 at: http://tinyurl.com/8tsrg
Parts 220-235 at: http://tinyurl.com/a9rc2
Parts 236-245 at: http://tinyurl.com/b9of7
Parts 246-254 at: http://tinyurl.com/cz9yq
Parts 255-280 at: http://tinyurl.com/aze8x
Parts 281-299 at: http://tinyurl.com/7dn3s
Parts 300-325 at: http://tinyurl.com/bj4mu
Parts 326-360 at: http://tinyurl.com/8unme
Parts 361-400 at: http://tinyurl.com/89tdu
Scientists of all
nationalities and religions will continue to publish examples,
Science's >>> THOUSANDS <<< of FALSE gods they make up
willy nilly, are NOT proof of anything.
Your idiotic nay-saying is proof of your fundamental impotence, nothing
else. Do you *seriously* think you're god almighty? Do you honestly
believe that you can will things into oblivion by your mere fiat? What
blasphemy!
God already spoke of what men would do,
And your proof of this is? The Bible is the words of men, not of any
god. How do you *know* there's a god? Where's your proof? How do you
*know* what he said? Where's your proof? (Hint: this is your cue to
run away in a desperate and hide your colossal impotence).
claiming the creatures
make themselves,
Nobody claimed that. The laws of physics make the creatures. Now if
you want to pretend some god made the laws of physics (although there's
squat for evidence of it), be my guest. Everything after that is
naturally occurring within those laws.
honoring creatures rather than giving credit
to the creator:
And where is *your* evidence that this fictional creator you invented
didn't start the thing off with the so-called Big Bang and trust in his
"design" to unfold eveything according to his plan? The fact is that
you have none.
Every word that comes out of your mouth is nothing but speculation
based on the words of scientifically ignorant, primitive men thousands
of years ago. You don't even know who any of them are. You have no
clue as ot their motives, their agenda, yet you blindly trust every
word they wrote. Go figure.
the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
Prove it.
evidence, and proof of macroevoltuion in science journals the world
Are non-existant.
Say it all you want. you're well known for your lies. But proving it
is something you cannot do.
You have absolutely NO proof that your NOTHING god does
anything at all.
You have absolutely NO proof that your NOTHING god does anything at
all. Meanwhile I have posted 26 **PROOFS* right here, and all *you*
can do in your myth-bound impotence, is bluster ineffectually about
them.
God simply makes whatever he wants to make,
You have absolutely NO proof that your NOTHING god does anything at
all.
whenever he wants to make the stuff... whatever it is...
You have absolutely NO proof that your NOTHING god does anything at
all.
whenever he's making it...
You have absolutely NO proof that your NOTHING god does anything at
all.
God's made it...
You have absolutely NO proof that your NOTHING god does anything at
all.
your "evolution" fairy tale doesn't do anything.
Meanwhile I have posted 26 **PROOFS* right here, and all *you* can do
in your myth-bound impotence, is bluster ineffectually about them.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
God, having all eternity to work in and infinite resources to call
upon, made the world and declared it perfect only to realise a blink of
a god's eye later that he had screwed it up so badly that he had to
literally flush it!
He started over with a righteous man and seven family members who
apparently between them were infested with every human disease and
parasite the world now knows!
Despite this "perfect" salvation plan, this god *still* screwed it up
so badly that he then had to rape a young woman and kill her child in
an absurdly assinine and primitive attempt to salvage the appalling
disaster he'd created!
Now here we are 2,000 years later, the promised return of this
sacrifical lamb (which should have been when those alive back then were
still living) long overdue, and nothing has changed.
This is what's called absolute, irrefutable disproof of God.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 12:21:10 AM |
|
|
Budikka wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
666 examples not enough for you?
Ya right, Beastika, those don't look like any kinda proof.
To be a proof, you have to have NOTHING stand up, and say
for itself "I did this".
Well... where's science's proof that NOTHING did it?
I want to see a statement from your "god called NOTHING".
Or if you call one of your gods, chaos, randomness,
preditors, whatever you call them... have them stand
up and SAY what they made.
Else... they didn't make the stuff.
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
26 examples proving macroevolution right here in this thread and you're
so stupid that you think you can get away with pretending there are
none?
You haven't shown any proof yet Beastika.
Proof would be a STATEMENT from your proposed god of NOTHING.
Well?
Where's the statement?
I see mindless blather, but not a shred of scientific refutation.
Your god of NOTHING hasn't presented anything showing it
having done ANYTHING.
It's just you speaking up and claiming NOTHING told you.
ha ha ha...
I don't believe you Beastika.
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
I don't need to disprove something which hasn't been established
outside of your own addled mind. *You're* the one asserting it.
No, no, no, YOU are the one claiming that your god of NOTHING
is making everything.
Prove it.
I wanna see a statement from NOTHING, where NOTHING is
claiming that it made EVERYTHING.
You're making up wild tales there Beastika.
*You're* the one who needs to provide the proof, otherwise it will
always be a myth, a fairy tale, won't it now?
Your god of NOTHING never said anything.
Yet you expect me to believe it made everything.
I don't believe it, Beastika.
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, he said what
he did, and what he said, matches what his creation shows.
Your god of NOTHING never said anything.
This is what's called absolute, irrefutable disproof of God.
You haven't EVER disproven God, Beastika.
Sure, you've whined 666 times about it, but in the end,
you NEVER disproved him, EVER. I already KNOW, 100% that
God is there, his words have proven who he is, and that
HE is the source of HIS creation.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 06:03:44 PM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
Budikka wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
666 examples not enough for you?
Ya right, Beastika, those don't look like any kinda proof.
To be a proof, you have to have NOTHING stand up, and say
for itself "I did this".
Well... where's science's proof that NOTHING did it?
===>What an idiot you are.
NO SCIENTIST says that "nothing did it".
NATURE did it.
Are you insane enough to need proof that NATURE exists? -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 07:39:17 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
666 examples not enough for you?
Ya right, Beastika, those don't look like any kinda proof.
Yet another empty comment. When you can actually rebut the evidence,
including the 26 direct proofs of macroevolution which show you up for
the pathetic little liar that you are, *then*, I'll take you seriously.
Until then you're just a bag of wind. You're just a whiney kid.
You're just a joke.
Offer me rebuttals or refutations. I will in future ignore your
pathetic whining unless you substantiate it with some fact, some
rebuttal. Got that. Loser? I'll respond to this in some detail, but
after this, if you don't offer a scientific rebuttal of the 26 proofs
in your very next response, you will be admitting that they are indeed
proof, and *you lose*. Got it? No more humoring you.
To be a proof, you have to have NOTHING stand up, and say
for itself "I did this".
Yeah right. A known liar like you gets to be the arbiter of what truth
and fact is! Get a clue. But you know what, the **EVIDENCE** stood up
and said this. Who are **YOU** to blasphemously insist that no god
wanted it to be this way? You can't. All *you* can do is set
*yourself* up as **A FALSE GOD** and try to declare what is and what
isn't by your own blasphemous fiat. LoL! How pathetic.
Well... where's science's proof that NOTHING did it?
The laws of physics, moron. The laws of physics did it all. Proven
fact. Now here *you* are **BLASPHEMOUSLY** insisting that you know
better than your god! LoL! You'r einsisting that your god wasn't
smart enough to set it up this way from the Big Bang and let it unfold
in the divine knowledge that it would work out the way he ordained it.
**YOU** are a blasphemer and have proven that you have zero faith in
the very god you claim to support. How ironic!
I want to see a statement from your "god called NOTHING".
Sorry, can't oblige. There is no god.
Now you provide *ME* with a statement directly from *your* god which
states that he did everything. Unreliable words written by primitive
scribes hundreds of years ago are unacceptable. I want a statement
**DIRECTLY FROM YOUR GOD**, unimpeded by human intervention. Can you
provide it? No! You lose.
Or if you call one of your gods, chaos, randomness,
preditors, whatever you call them... have them stand
up and SAY what they made.
They already did. It's not my fault that you're too blind and stupid
to see it.
Else... they didn't make the stuff.
Yeah, right, and we're all going to take *your* word for it - the word
of a proven liar:
http://tinyurl.com/d5beb
http://tinyurl.com/9zqo9
http://tinyurl.com/bx7dn
http://tinyurl.com/beqs7
http://tinyurl.com/73lnw
http://tinyurl.com/9wg2r
http://tinyurl.com/8z2dd
http://tinyurl.com/96vzm
http://tinyurl.com/e2edb
http://tinyurl.com/cmrts
Yeah. get a clue.
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
26 examples proving macroevolution right here in this thread and you're
so stupid that you think you can get away with pretending there are
none?
You haven't shown any proof yet Beastika.
26 proofs that macroevolution has actually occurred and been directly
observed are right here in this thread. Both you and Pastor Dave are
running from them like scared cats.
You know, it's hilarious that you're so knocked flat on your dumb *****
by these that all you can do is whine!. All your empty whining has
succeeded in doing is give me a de facto acceptance that I'm right and
you're wrong. Thanks for conceding, Loser.
Proof would be a STATEMENT from your proposed god of NOTHING.
Well?
Where's the statement?
Laws of physics and the Theory of Evolution backed by 150 years of
solid science based on observation **OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN
REALITY**.
Now where's the statement from *your* god, unpolluted with human
intervention? **WHERE IS IT LOSER**?
I see mindless blather, but not a shred of scientific refutation.
Your god of NOTHING hasn't presented anything showing it
having done ANYTHING.
26 proofs from which you're still running. TWENTY SIX PROOFS RIGHT
HERE IN THIS THREAD, LOSER** Keep running. Keep whining. Every empty
message, every lack of rebuttal solidifies my case, Loser. Thanks for
your help. Thank Pastor Dave, too. He's running so fast that he won't
even step into my threads any more, let alone attempt a rebuttal. LoL!
Sicnerely, thanks to both of you, and to all creationists everywhere,
for proving science right.
It's just you speaking up and claiming NOTHING told you.
The proof is right here. Why are you running from it, Loser? All you
can offer is childish whining! Do you *really* expect to make a case
by claiming some men you don't even know, whose agenda you have no idea
of, who could be bigger liars than you, told you there was a god who
did it and you swallowed it whole like a cheap *****?
I don't believe you Beastika.
Like I care what a loser like you thinks! LoL! The **FACT** that you
have now twice failed to offer even a shred of a rebuttal means you
actually do believe me and you daren't even admit it to yourself! If
you could rebut them, you would. You can't, as you ahve now proven
*twice*.
All you *can* do is whine. You cannot escape it. You can *SAY* all
you want, but it's your actions that prove it. You're a waste of a
human being. People like you are the reason Jesus wept, you moron.
I don't need to disprove something which hasn't been established
outside of your own addled mind. *You're* the one asserting it.
No, no, no, YOU are the one claiming that your god of NOTHING
is making everything.
No, the facts claim that. *You* are the one saying there is something
extra - something beyond what we see, something beyond what the
evidence shows, something that *you* claim is necessary, but which you
cannot prove, impotent as you are. You cannot prove there is
something. You cannot prove it's necessary. You lose - twice!
If you cannot provide it, mine stands as the default.
**WHERE IS THE DIRECT WORD FROM YOUR GOD, UNIMPEDED BY HUMAN
INTERVENTION OR INTERPRETATION, WHICH PROVES HE DID IT**?
Where is it? You have nothing. You can show nothing. You can provide
nothing. You can prove nothing. There the default position wins.
Prove it.
26 proofs here in this thread, every one of which you have **TWICE RUN
FROM**.
[Tedious, childish, repetitive whining flushed where it belongs]
Sure, you've whined 666 times about it
And you and Pastor Dave have run 666 times from the truth. Your god
must be really proud of you. You're nothing but limp Peter at the
passion.
but in the end,
you NEVER disproved him, EVER.
He is disproved by default. You're making the childish fairy tale
claim that there's a magic giant in the sky. If you want to claim
that, you need to **PROVE IT**. I'm waiting.
I already KNOW, 100% that
God is there
Yep - your brain is proof. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Tell us another one. Are you available as a stand-up entertainer?
So where does that leave us? You *know* you're right (no proof
required). I "know" you're wrong (and I've supplied the proof).
Who has the stronger position?
[Rest of dumbass ***** flushed where it belongs]
26 proofs and all we hear from the creationists is infantile whining.
You'd think a *real* god would be able to support them better than
that, wouldn't you?
Budikka
John, n. - something that's typically full of *****
Boatwright, n - a builder of empty vessels
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 05:03:28 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 06:21:10 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> wrote:
Budikka wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
666 examples not enough for you?
Ya right, Beastika, those don't look like any kinda proof.
To be a proof, you have to have NOTHING stand up, and say
for itself "I did this".
Well... where's science's proof that NOTHING did it?
Science does not offer proof only evidence. Where is
your evidence that 'something' did it.
Isn't the truth that nobody knows how the universe
and life came into existence. Science does not know,
science does not claim to know. Religion has no
evidence and does not know but it does claim to know
based on pure ignorance.
It is only religion that claims knowledge and claims
need proof to be accepted since a claim assumes
higher authority than theory sufficient evidence is
to justify beleif is not adquate the claim demand
proof.
Science makes no claims it has nothing to prove.
You cannot expect people to prove things they do
not even claim.
It is true that science is looking for evidence of how
things came about. I am suprised you do not support
this endeavour. If everything must have been created
then science will discover that eventually, and give you
clear evidence that a creator must have existed at
the time creation took place. Isn't this what you are
looking for?
Of course this endeavour puts you faith in deadly
peril which is why the research makes you nervous.
The stakes are high. If science does discover how
life came about by matural causes your religion
will be utterly destroyed as no creator would be
involved.
Clearly you are afraid this is exactly what science
has found and you are not confident that there
was a creator. If you were confident you would
be keenly following the reasearch. Because of
this lack of confidence you prefere to remain ignorant
rather than find the truth.
I think you are right, it does indeed seem more
likely that science will discover a natural process
and utterly destroy a need for a creator. Yes
your best strategy is to attempt to slow down even
stop scientist from searching. However pouring
scorn in an atheists newsgroup is not the way
to do it, indeed all you are doing here is show us
how afraid you are.
e
I want to see a statement from your "god called NOTHING".
I would like tosee a statement from your claimed god.
The Christian god called Christ has had 2000 years to
make one yet all we have ever got has been silence.
Makes you wonder whether it actually exists does it
not?
Or if you call one of your gods, chaos, randomness,
preditors, whatever you call them... have them stand
up and SAY what they made.
You seem to have a poor opinion of what you consider
as 'gods' and little respect for them.
Else... they didn't make the stuff.
Weren't you going to prove something about it, one way
or the other?
26 examples proving macroevolution right here in this thread and you're
so stupid that you think you can get away with pretending there are
none?
You haven't shown any proof yet Beastika.
Proof would be a STATEMENT from your proposed god of NOTHING.
Either that or a statement from a claimed god called "God".
Well?
Where's the statement?
Yep, where is it.
I see mindless blather, but not a shred of scientific refutation.
Your god of NOTHING hasn't presented anything showing it
having done ANYTHING.
Neither has your claimed god.
It's just you speaking up and claiming NOTHING told you.
The only claims I see here is the followers of that they
call "God" claiming this god did it. If so I want to know
how this "God" came out of nothing.
What seems the more likely:
1. Simple life occuring out of existing matter as a result
of natural processess
2 A highly complex creator omniscent being capable of
making the entire universe and all life out of absolutely
nothing popping out of nothing itself? ("Just like that"
to quote the comic magician Tommy Cooper)
Or to put it in your term:
1.Simple Life popping out of nothing
2. A creator popping out of nothing to create life
out of nothing?
Nothing seems to be the only common demonimator.
Since you seem to claim the latter ("God" popped
out of nothing, don't you think you aught to give
your god "Nothing" a bit more respect? :-)
ha ha ha...
Indeed.
I don't believe you Beastika.
I didn't think he required you to believe him?
You have yet to disprove God making whatever he wanted,
when ever he wanted to make the stuff.
I don't need to disprove something which hasn't been established
outside of your own addled mind. *You're* the one asserting it.
No, no, no, YOU are the one claiming that your god of NOTHING
is making everything.
Prove it.
The prove that you are making this claim is in the post
I wanna see a statement from NOTHING, where NOTHING is
claiming that it made EVERYTHING.
So what did create your god?
You're making up wild tales there Beastika.
*You're* the one who needs to provide the proof, otherwise it will
always be a myth, a fairy tale, won't it now?
Your god of NOTHING never said anything.
Maybe that's because there isn't want. You seem to like
inventing gods
Yet you expect me to believe it made everything.
I don't believe it, Beastika.
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, he said what
he did, and what he said, matches what his creation shows.
And where did these claimed gods come from. If these gods
made everything out of nothing then where did these gods
pop from?
Your god of NOTHING never said anything.
Its your claim nothing is a god. Where is your proof of
this?
This is what's called absolute, irrefutable disproof of God.
You haven't EVER disproven God, Beastika.
Has he ever tried.
Sure, you've whined 666 times about it, but in the end,
you NEVER disproved him, EVER. I already KNOW, 100% that
God is there, his words have proven who he is, and that
HE is the source of HIS creation.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
No Jesus died for Gods sin. Isn't the fact that Jesus died,
proof he is not a god? Gods are suppposed to be immortal.
Gods sin (according to the Bible) is that he created Adam
and Eve ignorance of the knowledge of good and evil. Without
such knowledge Adam could not distinquish God from the
Devil and know what was good and what was bad.
God then gave him a fake test knowing he was bound to
fail. "Don't eat the fruit", "Eat the fruit" was the two
instruction given to Adam. Adam did not know which
instruction was good and which was bad nor was able
to distinquish god from the devil so he obeyed
the last instruction like any good soldier only then
did he know he had made the wrong choice (assuming
god supposedly good, devil supposedly bad)
God then threw them out of the garden. God feels guilt
for doing this and decides to create a son to temporarily
kill in order to atone to humanity. God does not even get
this right since he is not the one to suffer his sin
nor does he make right his wrong and put us back
into the garden. The sin of this god must be high
so it withdraws and hidesnever appearing leaving its
son to carry the can. Like father like son, Jesus
says stuff that and hides as well and no calls are
ever annswered. As you know nothing fails like
a prayer.
Only the Israelites could dream up such a stupid
mixed up god. Only the Israelites could dream up
such a nasty evil god which practises the slaughter
of innocent children on the scale this god works
(all the Egyptian first born).Only the Israelites could
create a a god which forces others to do his dirty work for
him. I am suprised you follow a nasty religion like this one.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 06:09:17 PM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 06:21:10 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> wrote:
Budikka wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
This is the end of the macroevolution series.
Giving up so soon there Buddika?
666 examples not enough for you?
Ya right, Beastika, those don't look like any kinda proof.
To be a proof, you have to have NOTHING stand up, and say
for itself "I did this".
Well... where's science's proof that NOTHING did it?
Science does not offer proof only evidence. Where is
your evidence that 'something' did it.
Isn't the truth that nobody knows how the universe
and life came into existence. Science does not know,
science does not claim to know.
===>What is "science"?
But all scientists know that NATURE EXISTS,
so, what "proof" would they need?
NATURE, the COSMOS, THE WAY (TAO)
produces and transforms all things through its
eternal course of change and transformation. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: 26 Proofs of Macroevolution - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 08:39:09 PM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
His usual lies.
Still waiting on you turning up even one proof of this god of yours,
Boatless Still waiting on **ANY** creationist, **ANYWHERE**, refuting,
trying to refute, rebutting, trying to rebut even one of the 26 proofs
of macroevolution listed.
Where are you Pastor Dave? Or is it "Past Your Best Dave" now? I gave
you a huge Xmas present and you don't even have the decency to say
"Thank you"? So much for Christian charity.
I don't know why we don't have more creationists entering the Olympics.
You'd win every event that involves running. There's lots of other
events, too:
The Whine Jump
The Lie-athlon
Taking a dive
Folly ball
Shooting (yourself in the foot)
Fencing (sitting on)
or any downhill event.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Melchizedek" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Macroevolution - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
29 Dec 2005 07:58:45 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1134959949.805341.198090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://lulu.com/bibleweb/
http://bibleweb.info/
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Macroevolution - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
18 Dec 2005 10:48:57 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
His usual lies.
Still waiting on you turning up even one proof of this god of yours,
Boatless Still waiting on **ANY** creationist, **ANYWHERE**, refuting,
trying to refute, rebutting, trying to rebut even one of the 26 proofs
of macroevolution listed.
Where are you Pastor Dave? Or is it "Past Your Best Dave" now? I gave
you a huge Xmas present and you don't even have the decency to say
"Thank you"? So much for Christian charity.
I don't know why we don't have more creationists entering the Olympics.
You'd win every event that involves running. There's lots of other
events, too:
The Whine Jump
The Lie-athlon
Taking a dive
Folly ball
Shooting (yourself in the foot)
Fencing (sitting on)
or any downhill event.
Budikka
===>Ah, a little humor! Good!
We need that. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Melchizedek" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Macroevolution - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
29 Dec 2005 07:59:35 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:43A63BB9.2BC13F8E@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
http://lulu.com/bibleweb/
http://bibleweb.info/
===>Ah, a little humor! Good!
We need that. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Macroevolution - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
19 Dec 2005 03:05:41 AM |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2005 18:39:09 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
His usual lies.
Still waiting on you turning up even one proof of this god of yours,
Boatless Still waiting on **ANY** creationist, **ANYWHERE**, refuting,
trying to refute, rebutting, trying to rebut even one of the 26 proofs
of macroevolution listed.
Where are you Pastor Dave? Or is it "Past Your Best Dave" now? I gave
you a huge Xmas present and you don't even have the decency to say
"Thank you"? So much for Christian charity.
I don't know why we don't have more creationists entering the Olympics.
You'd win every event that involves running. There's lots of other
events, too:
The Whine Jump
The Lie-athlon
Taking a dive
Folly ball
Shooting (yourself in the foot)
Fencing (sitting on)
or any downhill event.
Budikka
Or how about:
* "Cross" Country skiing
* Cycling arguments
* Wait-lifting
* Straw-man Wrestling
* Skating on thin ice
* Long Jump to conclusions
* Shadow boxing
* Blind Cricket
* Very Bad-minton
* That Figures Skating
* Nice Hockey
* Proof Handball
* Divinic Water Polo
* 25m Rapid Fire Bible quotes
* ***** put
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys little helper" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
17 Dec 2005 04:31:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:16:57 GMT, John P. Boatwright wrote:
Science's >>> THOUSANDS <<< of FALSE gods they make up
willy nilly, are NOT proof of anything.
Is quantum mechanics false?
--
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of God making stuff - Merry Xmas Pastor Dave |
17 Dec 2005 05:19:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:31:55 +0000, Sanity's little helper <elvish@noshpam.net> wrote:
On Sat, | | | |
