|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Another "Missing Link" Hominid Found |
16 Apr 2006 12:31:35 AM |
|
|
Richard Dawkins wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolutionist hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific evidence
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your choice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argument
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ever
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Another "Missing Link" Hominid Found |
16 Apr 2006 10:40:39 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1145165495.795094.327100@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolutionist
hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific evidence
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your choice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argument
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ever
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
The creationists motto seems to be "Don't bother me with facts".
Ever single one of them has and likely will continue to run away when asked
for concrete evidence.
pierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬ Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Another "Missing Link" Hominid Found |
16 Apr 2006 12:10:58 PM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns97A76CA151FA9mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1145165495.795094.327100@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolutionist
hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific evidence
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your choice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argument
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ever
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
The creationists motto seems to be "Don't bother me with facts".
Ever single one of them has and likely will continue to run away when asked
for concrete evidence.
pierce
o duh, if I find something in the garden while digging in it, I'll just assume it's
a missing link ho hoho...
S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
17 Apr 2006 05:51:40 PM |
|
|
=AC Saba Gracile=AC wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns97A76CA151FA9mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1145165495.795094.327100@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolutionist
hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific evidence
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your choice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argument
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ever
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
The creationists motto seems to be "Don't bother me with facts".
Ever single one of them has and likely will continue to run away when a=
sked
for concrete evidence.
pierce
o duh, if I find something in the garden while digging in it, I'll just a=
ssume it's
a missing link ho hoho...
I'm throwing open the same offer I made to the Dork, since he fled it
like a startled cat. Let's see if any of you can field it better than
he. Anyone can post idiotic messages on Usenet. The creationists
prove that repeatedly. But can even one of you stand behind your
assertions with scientific facts to support you? My assertion is that
you cannot. Let's test that assertion.
Here is my challenge to creationists on Usenet: Let's debate the
positive scientific evidence for creation/intelligent design in the
news group or on the web site of your choice, provided that I can
access it. Simply post your ~25K opening argument (showing
scientifically-supported positive evidence for creation or intelligent
design) and let me know where your opening message is by responding to
this message, and I'll show you where you're wrong.
Note that positive scientific evidence means evidence published in
professional science journals or at the very least (to make it widely
accessible), has been reported in the popular media (such as
news.bbc.co.uk, or www.cnn.com) and the news report states that the
evidence has been reported in a professional science journal. Examples
of this are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4900946.stm
Where we're told of a no longer missing link found in the hominid line
and the article states, "They describe the finds, which belong to the
species Australopithecus anamensis, in the journal Nature."
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm
Where it tells us: "US palaeontologists have published details of the
fossil "missing links" in the prestigious journal Nature."
or even this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4902784.stm
Where we see that "The Belgian researchers, writing in the journal
Nature, hope this discovery will help to explain how fish moved from
sea to land millions of years ago."
All of these items have been in the news in the last couple of months,
refer to articles published in the widely respected professional
science journal _Nature_ and demonstrate positive evidence for the
Theory of Evolution.
Can you quote anything similar to demonstrate positive evidence for
creation?
We will go back and forth with messages of similar size in turn until
one of us gives up or concedes. We need address only each other's
messages. We can address extraneous messages as we choose.
Any takers?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
17 Apr 2006 11:05:31 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145314300.248377.57030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
:
Can you quote anything similar to demonstrate positive evidence for
creation?
We will go back and forth with messages of similar size in turn until
one of us gives up or concedes. We need address only each other's
messages. We can address extraneous messages as we choose.
Any takers?
Budikka
"until one of us gives up or concedes"??
Does that imply that exhaustion is a potentially winning tactic?
You should probably make it clear "up front", as wearing down an
opponent with endless streams of outright fraudulent lies appears to
be the only cretinist tactic, so far.
--
Michael Gray
Naivety is a gift for the infant, but disastrous for the adult.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 07:09:44 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145314300.248377.57030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
:
Can you quote anything similar to demonstrate positive evidence for
creation?
We will go back and forth with messages of similar size in turn until
one of us gives up or concedes. We need address only each other's
messages. We can address extraneous messages as we choose.
Any takers?
Budikka
"until one of us gives up or concedes"??
Does that imply that exhaustion is a potentially winning tactic?
You should probably make it clear "up front", as wearing down an
opponent with endless streams of outright fraudulent lies appears to
be the only cretinist tactic, so far.
--
Michael Gray
Naivety is a gift for the infant, but disastrous for the adult.
Shame on you MG - you underestimate my stamina!
B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 02:05:38 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1145405384.900392.245240@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Michael Gray wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145314300.248377.57030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
:
Can you quote anything similar to demonstrate positive evidence for
creation?
We will go back and forth with messages of similar size in turn until
one of us gives up or concedes. We need address only each other's
messages. We can address extraneous messages as we choose.
Any takers?
Budikka
"until one of us gives up or concedes"??
Does that imply that exhaustion is a potentially winning tactic?
You should probably make it clear "up front", as wearing down an
opponent with endless streams of outright fraudulent lies appears to
be the only cretinist tactic, so far.
--
Michael Gray
Naivety is a gift for the infant, but disastrous for the adult.
Shame on you MG - you underestimate my stamina!
If running increases stamina you must have shitloads to spare...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 11:30:34 PM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2006 17:09:44 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145405384.900392.245240@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145314300.248377.57030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
:
Can you quote anything similar to demonstrate positive evidence for
creation?
We will go back and forth with messages of similar size in turn until
one of us gives up or concedes. We need address only each other's
messages. We can address extraneous messages as we choose.
Any takers?
Budikka
"until one of us gives up or concedes"??
Does that imply that exhaustion is a potentially winning tactic?
You should probably make it clear "up front", as wearing down an
opponent with endless streams of outright fraudulent lies appears to
be the only cretinist tactic, so far.
--
Michael Gray
Naivety is a gift for the infant, but disastrous for the adult.
Shame on you MG - you underestimate my stamina!
Sorry, I lost concentration for a minute there!
I was projecting my rather feeble tolerance of cretinist ignorance and
dishonest and threatening debating techniques.
It won't happen again!
;)
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 01:53:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:35:31 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145314300.248377.57030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
:
Can you quote anything similar to demonstrate positive evidence for
creation?
We will go back and forth with messages of similar size in turn until
one of us gives up or concedes. We need address only each other's
messages. We can address extraneous messages as we choose.
Any takers?
Budikka
"until one of us gives up or concedes"??
Does that imply that exhaustion is a potentially winning tactic?
You should probably make it clear "up front", as wearing down an
opponent with endless streams of outright fraudulent lies appears to
be the only cretinist tactic, so far.
And every time you respond to the cretin he/she has a reason to
continue. Ignore this idiot. Stop wasting the time of those other
users, down loading and culling nonsense takes time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 05:00:59 AM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
¬ Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns97A76CA151FA9mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1145165495.795094.327100@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolutionist
hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific evidence
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your choice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argument
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ever
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
The creationists motto seems to be "Don't bother me with facts".
Ever single one of them has and likely will continue to run away when asked
for concrete evidence.
pierce
o duh, if I find something in the garden while digging in it, I'll just assume it's
a missing link ho hoho...
I'm throwing open the same offer I made to the Dork, since he fled it
like a startled cat. Let's see if any of you can field it better than
he. Anyone can post idiotic messages on Usenet. The creationists
prove that repeatedly. But can even one of you stand behind your
assertions with scientific facts to support you? My assertion is that
you cannot. Let's test that assertion.
I am still waiting for these scientists to find god. For all their
claimed scientific knowledge and college degrees they do not even
seem to know where to look.
Here is my challenge to creationists on Usenet: Let's debate the
positive scientific evidence for creation/intelligent design in the
news group or on the web site of your choice, provided that I can
access it. Simply post your ~25K opening argument (showing
scientifically-supported positive evidence for creation or intelligent
design) and let me know where your opening message is by responding to
this message, and I'll show you where you're wrong.
Note that positive scientific evidence means evidence published in
professional science journals or at the very least (to make it widely
accessible), has been reported in the popular media (such as
news.bbc.co.uk, or www.cnn.com) and the news report states that the
evidence has been reported in a professional science journal. Examples
of this are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4900946.stm
Where we're told of a no longer missing link found in the hominid line
and the article states, "They describe the finds, which belong to the
species Australopithecus anamensis, in the journal Nature."
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm
Where it tells us: "US palaeontologists have published details of the
fossil "missing links" in the prestigious journal Nature."
or even this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4902784.stm
Where we see that "The Belgian researchers, writing in the journal
Nature, hope this discovery will help to explain how fish moved from
sea to land millions of years ago."
All of these items have been in the news in the last couple of months,
refer to articles published in the widely respected professional
science journal _Nature_ and demonstrate positive evidence for the
Theory of Evolution.
Can you quote anything similar to demonstrate positive evidence for
creation?
We will go back and forth with messages of similar size in turn until
one of us gives up or concedes. We need address only each other's
messages. We can address extraneous messages as we choose.
Any takers?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬ Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 05:41:10 AM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> skrev i melding
news:f1e94212kaurtmpp4rit26q01icsif1bjj@4ax.com...
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
¬ Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns97A76CA151FA9mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1145165495.795094.327100@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolutionist
hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific evidence
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your choice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argument
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ever
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
The creationists motto seems to be "Don't bother me with facts".
Ever single one of them has and likely will continue to run away when asked
for concrete evidence.
pierce
o duh, if I find something in the garden while digging in it, I'll just assume it's
a missing link ho hoho...
I'm throwing open the same offer I made to the Dork, since he fled it
like a startled cat. Let's see if any of you can field it better than
he. Anyone can post idiotic messages on Usenet. The creationists
prove that repeatedly. But can even one of you stand behind your
assertions with scientific facts to support you? My assertion is that
you cannot. Let's test that assertion.
I am still waiting for these scientists to find god. For all their
claimed scientific knowledge and college degrees they do not even
seem to know where to look.
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Saba
Here is my challenge to creationists on Usenet: Let's debate the
positive scientific evidence for creation/intelligent design in the
news group or on the web site of your choice, provided that I can
access it. Simply post your ~25K opening argument (showing
scientifically-supported positive evidence for creation or intelligent
design) and let me know where your opening message is by responding to
this message, and I'll show you where you're wrong.
Note that positive scientific evidence means evidence published in
professional science journals or at the very least (to make it widely
accessible), has been reported in the popular media (such as
news.bbc.co.uk, or www.cnn.com) and the news report states that the
evidence has been reported in a professional science journal. Examples
of this are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4900946.stm
Where we're told of a no longer missing link found in the hominid line
and the article states, "They describe the finds, which belong to the
species Australopithecus anamensis, in the journal Nature."
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm
Where it tells us: "US palaeontologists have published details of the
fossil "missing links" in the prestigious journal Nature."
or even this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4902784.stm
Where we see that "The Belgian researchers, writing in the journal
Nature, hope this discovery will help to explain how fish moved from
sea to land millions of years ago."
All of these items have been in the news in the last couple of months,
refer to articles published in the widely respected professional
science journal _Nature_ and demonstrate positive evidence for the
Theory of Evolution.
Can you quote anything similar to demonstrate positive evidence for
creation?
We will go back and forth with messages of similar size in turn until
one of us gives up or concedes. We need address only each other's
messages. We can address extraneous messages as we choose.
Any takers?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 07:24:45 PM |
|
|
=AC Saba Gracile=AC wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> skrev i melding
news:f1e94212kaurtmpp4rit26q01icsif1bjj@4ax.com...
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
=AC Saba Gracile=AC wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns97A76CA151FA9mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1145165495.795094.327100@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Dork ***** wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolution=
ist
hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific eviden=
ce
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your ch=
oice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argu=
ment
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ev=
er
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
The creationists motto seems to be "Don't bother me with facts".
Ever single one of them has and likely will continue to run away wh=
en asked
for concrete evidence.
pierce
o duh, if I find something in the garden while digging in it, I'll ju=
st assume it's
a missing link ho hoho...
I'm throwing open the same offer I made to the Dork, since he fled it
like a startled cat. Let's see if any of you can field it better than
he. Anyone can post idiotic messages on Usenet. The creationists
prove that repeatedly. But can even one of you stand behind your
assertions with scientific facts to support you? My assertion is that
you cannot. Let's test that assertion.
I am still waiting for these scientists to find god. For all their
claimed scientific knowledge and college degrees they do not even
seem to know where to look.
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particul=
ar
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Saba
I can see why you're too chicken to take up the debate offer if this
weak and ancient blind faith approach is all you have. But please note
that the debate requested **POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE** not blind
belief and grade-school debating society "argument".
The only reason we know that computers are designed is that we know
that computers are designed. It really is that simple.
The very definition of "artificial" is something that doesn't occur
naturally. We have examples of computers that we know for a fact were
designed by humans, so *naturally* when we see another computer, even
if we do not know who designed it, we can state quite confidently that
it was designed by humans.
On the other hand, we have no examples of universes that we know for a
fact to have been designed by gods, so we have nothing with which to
compare *this* universe.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose someone - a human - designed a tree
and constructed it from scratch using only natural materials, emulating
a natural tree exactly. Then supposing this human planted that tree
right next to the one from which it was copied. What criteria would
you use to distinguish the two trees?
Exactly.
You lose. Buh-bye now. Next please.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬ Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 04:59:20 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145406285.298921.283940@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
¬ Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> skrev i melding
news:f1e94212kaurtmpp4rit26q01icsif1bjj@4ax.com...
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
¬ Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns97A76CA151FA9mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1145165495.795094.327100@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Dork ***** wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolutionist
hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific evidence
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your choice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argument
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ever
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
The creationists motto seems to be "Don't bother me with facts".
Ever single one of them has and likely will continue to run away when asked
for concrete evidence.
pierce
o duh, if I find something in the garden while digging in it, I'll just assume it's
a missing link ho hoho...
I'm throwing open the same offer I made to the Dork, since he fled it
like a startled cat. Let's see if any of you can field it better than
he. Anyone can post idiotic messages on Usenet. The creationists
prove that repeatedly. But can even one of you stand behind your
assertions with scientific facts to support you? My assertion is that
you cannot. Let's test that assertion.
I am still waiting for these scientists to find god. For all their
claimed scientific knowledge and college degrees they do not even
seem to know where to look.
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Saba
I can see why you're too chicken to take up the debate offer if this
weak and ancient blind faith approach is all you have. But please note
that the debate requested **POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE** not blind
belief and grade-school debating society "argument".
--->blind faith like you have in a Darwin guy who dissed his own work? good job
at being rational.
Look at your self in the mirror. I can't guarantee that you will see anything of intelligence,
but give it a go.
The only reason we know that computers are designed is that we know
that computers are designed. It really is that simple.
-->or, that if one was found on pluto, standing there, nobody would for one
nanosec believe it was made up on it's own without a creator. Well, the brain
is a computer, the cells are small computers and factories, how much simpler
can it get?
The very definition of "artificial" is something that doesn't occur
naturally. We have examples of computers that we know for a fact were
designed by humans, so *naturally* when we see another computer, even
if we do not know who designed it, we can state quite confidently that
it was designed by humans.
--->yawn, is this your line of argument? what we see, we see? Then how can a
non-proved (rather dis-proved) theory of transitional evolution be *seen* with
critical and rational eyes like yours claim to be, when there is antiproof of it in
speices coming out of nowhere in earths layers? Isn't this something that we SEE
("know for a fact")?
On the other hand, we have no examples of universes that we know for a
fact to have been designed by gods, so we have nothing with which to
compare *this* universe.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose someone - a human - designed a tree
and constructed it from scratch using only natural materials, emulating
a natural tree exactly. Then supposing this human planted that tree
right next to the one from which it was copied. What criteria would
you use to distinguish the two trees?
---> why would I even distinguish the two trees if the question is did someone manipulate
it into possibility of being trees? Can you not step back and look at first causes only
results?
SAba
Exactly.
You lose. Buh-bye now. Next please.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 07:57:40 PM |
|
|
=AC Saba Gracile=AC wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
I can see why you're too chicken to take up the debate offer if this
weak and ancient blind faith approach is all you have. But please note
that the debate requested **POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE** not blind
belief and grade-school debating society "argument".
--->blind faith like you have in a Darwin guy who dissed his own work?
Real scientists are always skeptics, even about their own work, but
since we have 150 years of solid scientific support for the Theory that
Darwin first put together, your comments serve to show only the depth
of your profound ignorance.
The Theory of Evolution is far, far, far from blind faith - it is a
scientific theory which has gained a wealth of support over the last
150 years.
Once again, where is the science supporting your contentions?
good job
at being rational.
This from the vacuous hypocrite who cannot offer even a shred of
science to support **ANYTHING** he claims?
The only reason we know that computers are designed is that we know
that computers are designed. It really is that simple.
-->or, that if one was found on pluto, standing there, nobody would for o=
ne
nanosec believe it was made up on it's own without a creator. Well, the =
brain
is a computer, the cells are small computers and factories, how much simp=
ler
can it get?
I know someone already asked you for this, but once again you ran away
from even pretending you could answer it. Where is your evidence that
the brain is **DESIGNED** by a **DIVINE** intelligence?
There are examples of natural computers of one sort or another all the
way from a single cell to the trillions of connections in the human
brain - in other words, it doesn't show a documented step-wise design
effort like we saw in the history of computing, but a continuum of
natural development.
The very definition of "artificial" is something that doesn't occur
naturally. We have examples of computers that we know for a fact were
designed by humans, so *naturally* when we see another computer, even
if we do not know who designed it, we can state quite confidently that
it was designed by humans.
--->yawn, is this your line of argument? what we see, we see?
As opposed to your **BLIND** unsupported childish beliefs?
Is that your line of argument, "no it isn't" **WITHOUT A SINGLE SHRED
OF SUPPORT FOR A SINGLE THING YOU'VE CLAIMED? Until and unless you put
up, you need to shut up, because you are absolutely not in a position
to criticize anything others have argued against you.
Then how can a
non-proved (rather dis-proved) theory of transitional evolution
Another lie! Where is it disproved? The Theory of Evolution has 150
years of solid scientific support from people fo all nationalities and
all faiths.
Where is the science supporting your claims?
be *seen* with
critical and rational eyes like yours claim to be, when there is antiproo=
f of it in
speices coming out of nowhere in earths layers? Isn't this something that=
we SEE
("know for a fact")?
Where does the Theory of Evolution state that species come out of dirt
fully-formed? And yes, evolution is a fact. It's been observed in the
lab and in the wild. The Theory of Evolution is **THE ONLY
SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED EXPLANATION FOR THE FACT OF EVOLUTION**.
What are you, 13 years old? Seriously, if you are going to conduct
yourself at this primitive and juvenile level, I am not going to lower
myself to join you. You need to state your claims **THEN SUPPORT THEM
WITH SCIENCE** or you will be ridiculed and laughed at. Then you will
be ignored.
You've stated your claims. Now support them with science.
On the other hand, we have no examples of universes that we know for a
fact to have been designed by gods, so we have nothing with which to
compare *this* universe.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose someone - a human - designed a tree
and constructed it from scratch using only natural materials, emulating
a natural tree exactly. Then supposing this human planted that tree
right next to the one from which it was copied. What criteria would
you use to distinguish the two trees?
---> why would I even distinguish the two trees if the question is did so=
meone manipulate
it into possibility of being trees? Can you not step back and look at fir=
st causes only
results?
Answer the question or you will be labeled a coward on top of the
hypocrite and liar labels you've garnered for yourself in this message
alone.
First cause is an entirely separate argument which has been dismissed
in another message. **This** is the message we're addressing now.
What criteria can you use to distinguish between the two trees in my
example? If you can state none, you are admitting that your design
argument is fundamentally without merit, and you lose.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
20 Apr 2006 05:42:41 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145494660.090448.37120@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There are examples of natural computers of one sort or another all the
way from a single cell to the trillions of connections in the human
brain - in other words, it doesn't show a documented step-wise design
effort like we saw in the history of computing, but a continuum of
natural development.
-->dont' we just love this hypocricy? This is worse than religious belief, because
here, we just muddle the waters so that it must be considered true; if it's just enough
factors, coincidents, chaos and years added, it will ALL come into existance before
you know it! This sums up a hopeless faith in some chaotic mess creating total
order, that I can't believe what I'm reading. (Though I know they are dogmatic
as hell, it's also very crazy, what they actually believe).
S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence forID? |
20 Apr 2006 12:02:57 PM |
|
|
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
This sums up a hopeless faith in some chaotic mess creating
total order,
So where do I find the guy who stacks the gumballs in the gumball
machine?
that I can't believe what I'm reading.
Yet you /do/ believe in talking snakes and crop circles.
You've got an open mind, all right. It's so open, in fact, that
your brains have spilled right out.
(Though I know they are dogmatic as hell, it's also very crazy,
what they actually believe).
Like...um...thousands of dead people roaming the streets of
Jerusalem, but nobody bothered to mention the fact for several
decades? Or some dude getting /very/ publicly executed--and then,
just a couple days later, picking up where he left off for another
month and a half, doing the same ***** that got him offed in the
first place...and /nobody/ lifts a finger and absofuckinloutely
NOBODY writing boo about it for several decades?
Or...I dunno...like Paul hobnobbing with all the people in
Jerusalem who supposedly saw all this ***** go down, yet even /he/
didn't mention any of it?
Dude...you have no fucking clue where fantasy begins and reality
ends.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 07:09:11 AM |
|
|
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> skrev i melding news:2frkh3-7mj.ln1@reiche.trumpetpower.com...
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
This sums up a hopeless faith in some chaotic mess creating
total order,
So where do I find the guy who stacks the gumballs in the gumball
machine?
You could start by not denying that the gumball machine was made by
someone.
that I can't believe what I'm reading.
Yet you /do/ believe in talking snakes and crop circles.
There's more to life than our boxed heads know about, I think so yes.
You've got an open mind, all right. It's so open, in fact, that
your brains have spilled right out.
(Though I know they are dogmatic as hell, it's also very crazy,
what they actually believe).
Like...um...thousands of dead people roaming the streets of
Jerusalem, but nobody bothered to mention the fact for several
decades? Or some dude getting /very/ publicly executed--and then,
just a couple days later, picking up where he left off for another
month and a half, doing the same ***** that got him offed in the
first place...and /nobody/ lifts a finger and absofuckinloutely
NOBODY writing boo about it for several decades?
Now he's rambling out of dispair, how cute. I guess we're desperate now.
If God wants to do something, it will take time in HIS view of time, not ours
which can be compared to a lifetime of a virus compared to his timespan.
I don't know what's going on with The Plan, if there is any. Who knows if
God has left the ship, and Christ is talking him into doing something about it?
I know discussions with God has taken place before, with unexpected outcome.
God is not a machine, but he doesn't lie, and the prophesies in the bible came
true in it's due time, and so will the rest.
Or...I dunno...like Paul hobnobbing with all the people in
Jerusalem who supposedly saw all this ***** go down, yet even /he/
didn't mention any of it?
really? Strange, but all the apostles had their version of the same story, too similar
yet written in different styles, to just be hagwash.
Dude...you have no fucking clue where fantasy begins and reality
ends.
ditto
S
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence forID? |
22 Apr 2006 10:46:49 AM |
|
|
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
This sums up a hopeless faith in some chaotic mess creating
total order,
So where do I find the guy who stacks the gumballs in the
gumball machine?
You could start by not denying that the gumball machine was made
by someone.
Dude...you /seriously/ think it's the fucking GUMBALL MACHINE
that's doing the stacking?
What a maroon.
Or...I dunno...like Paul hobnobbing with all the people in
Jerusalem who supposedly saw all this ***** go down, yet even
/he/ didn't mention any of it?
really? Strange, but all the apostles had their version of the
same story, too similar yet written in different styles, to just
be hagwash.
No fucking clue from the Christer, as usual.
The Gospels were written starting at the tail end of the first
century. The Synoptics are mostly cribbed from each other, with
Mark supplying most of the oldest stuff.
Even then, the anonymous authors couldn't keep their hearsay
(hint: read the introduction to Luke) straight. Pick /any/
biographical detail about Jesus. If more than one Gospel mentions
it, there'll be irreconcilable contradictory and ludicrously
divergent versions of it.
Joseph had two daddies. Jesus grew up in Judea and in Egypt at the
same time. He impressed the court with his stoic silence and wowed
them with his extended eloquence. He was nailed up at all hours of
the day, and spoke lots of last words. Everybody independently
discovered the empty tomb at the same time and no two people saw
the same scene. He ascended not at all or from three different
places on one of two days, a month and a half apart.
And this is all ignoring the fact that there're copious
contemporary and near-contemporary records covering each and every
event that could possibly be recorded, and each and every one
of those records flatly contradicts the century-later Biblical
accounts.
But, then again, you're too much of a fucking idiot to recognize
cereal graffiti when somebody waves a videotape of the artist in
action right in front of your face....
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
23 Apr 2006 02:02:21 PM |
|
|
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> skrev i melding news:8ovph3-og5.ln1@reiche.trumpetpower.com...
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
This sums up a hopeless faith in some chaotic mess creating
total order,
So where do I find the guy who stacks the gumballs in the
gumball machine?
You could start by not denying that the gumball machine was made
by someone.
Dude...you /seriously/ think it's the fucking GUMBALL MACHINE
that's doing the stacking?
What a maroon.
what a moron-maroon you are. I'm saying that they wouldn't be stacked in
the first place if there wasn't a fucking stack-inventory such as the gumball
machine in the first place. coinsidence then does the rest. Doesn't mean that
all of a sudden there will appear zebra's and fishes in it hahaha, good one ey?
S
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 03:57:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:09:11 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
(Though I know they are dogmatic as hell, it's also very crazy,
what they actually believe).
Like...um...thousands of dead people roaming the streets of
Jerusalem, but nobody bothered to mention the fact for several
decades? Or some dude getting /very/ publicly executed--and then,
just a couple days later, picking up where he left off for another
month and a half, doing the same ***** that got him offed in the
first place...and /nobody/ lifts a finger and absofuckinloutely
NOBODY writing boo about it for several decades?
Now he's rambling out of dispair, how cute. I guess we're desperate now.
It is your bible that he is referencing: don't you believe what it says?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "¬Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
20 Apr 2006 05:44:13 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145494660.090448.37120@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Where does the Theory of Evolution state that species come out of dirt
fully-formed? And yes, evolution is a fact. It's been observed in the
lab and in the wild. The Theory of Evolution is **THE ONLY
SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED EXPLANATION FOR THE FACT OF EVOLUTION**.
--->you are stupid. ARe you losing it? The Theory of Desillution does NOT say that
they come out fully-formed, they say the opposite because of their little dogma, whereas
the EVIDENCE of the fossiles, says that they come out fully formed.
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence forID? |
20 Apr 2006 12:07:46 PM |
|
|
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Where does the Theory of Evolution state that species come out
of dirt fully-formed? And yes, evolution is a fact. It's been
observed in the lab and in the wild. The Theory of Evolution
is **THE ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED EXPLANATION FOR THE FACT
OF EVOLUTION**.
you are stupid. ARe you losing it? The Theory of Desillution
does NOT say that they come out fully-formed, they say the
opposite because of their little dogma, whereas the EVIDENCE of
the fossiles, says that they come out fully formed.
Now what the ***** are you smoking? We've found fossilized eggs and
embryos, juveniles, and adults--fossils in every possible state of
formation. We've found transitional fossils of just about every
possible type, tracing all the way back to ancient forebears
that're as close to unformed as one can get and not completely
dissolve upon death.
Oh--I get it. This is just another one of your lies for Jesus. Cut
that ***** out, will you?
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 07:13:13 AM |
|
|
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> skrev i melding news:3orkh3-cp6.ln1@reiche.trumpetpower.com...
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Where does the Theory of Evolution state that species come out
of dirt fully-formed? And yes, evolution is a fact. It's been
observed in the lab and in the wild. The Theory of Evolution
is **THE ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED EXPLANATION FOR THE FACT
OF EVOLUTION**.
you are stupid. ARe you losing it? The Theory of Desillution
does NOT say that they come out fully-formed, they say the
opposite because of their little dogma, whereas the EVIDENCE of
the fossiles, says that they come out fully formed.
Now what the ***** are you smoking? We've found fossilized eggs and
embryos, juveniles, and adults--fossils in every possible state of
formation. We've found transitional fossils of just about every
possible type, tracing all the way back to ancient forebears
that're as close to unformed as one can get and not completely
dissolve upon death.
oh my God, the dogma.
They are not really transitions, but creations that are just as finished as the rest
of the creations you see. If it looks like nothing we've seen, doesn't automatically
conclude that they are missing links, that is 100% unscientific, like any belief.
THis seems to be a ok with the E.belivers.
Oh--I get it. This is just another one of your lies for Jesus. Cut
that ***** out, will you?
riiight.
S
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 07:14:38 AM |
|
|
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> skrev i melding news:SeSdnagk5fhGgNfZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
Oh--I get it. This is just another one of your lies for Jesus. Cut
that ***** out, will you?
BTW Christ did exists, say all honest researchers, I don't have to lie for that
fact.
S
riiight.
S
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 07:53:38 AM |
|
|
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
"-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC" <veronisc@frisurf.no> skrev i melding news:SeSdnag=
k5fhGgNfZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
Oh--I get it. This is just another one of your lies for Jesus. Cut
that ***** out, will you?
BTW Christ did exists, say all honest researchers, I don't have to lie fo=
r that
fact.
ANOTHER UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION.
Which researchers? Where is their evidence? What scientific evidence
(note: chants of "It's in the Bible" do not constitute scientific
evidence) do you have that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of some god?
Because if we're going to conduct exchanges with you on the basis
you're adopting, all I have to do to utterly refute what you claim is
to say, "BTW Christ did NOT exist, say all honest researchers, I don't
have to lie for that fact."
And you're refuted.
This is why it comes down to supplying supportive **EVIDENCE** for your
claims, dimwit. Why is it that after I've told you this a diozen
times, it still hasn't registered in that pigshit you use for a brain?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 08:37:36 PM |
|
|
On 22 Apr 2006 05:53:38 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1145710418.230720.157550@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
-¬Saba Gracile-¬ wrote:
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> skrev i melding news:SeSdnagk5fhGgNfZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
Oh--I get it. This is just another one of your lies for Jesus. Cut
that ***** out, will you?
BTW Christ did exists, say all honest researchers, I don't have to lie for that
fact.
ANOTHER UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION.
Which researchers? Where is their evidence? What scientific evidence
(note: chants of "It's in the Bible" do not constitute scientific
evidence) do you have that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of some god?
Because if we're going to conduct exchanges with you on the basis
you're adopting, all I have to do to utterly refute what you claim is
to say, "BTW Christ did NOT exist, say all honest researchers, I don't
have to lie for that fact."
And you're refuted.
This is why it comes down to supplying supportive **EVIDENCE** for your
claims, dimwit. Why is it that after I've told you this a diozen
times, it still hasn't registered in that pigshit you use for a brain?
Budikka
I'm glad to see that I had this "Saba" turkey pegged very accurately.
My ticker could not take the frustration of a one-sided 'debate' on
Relativistic Quantum Electrodynamics & Electroweak Theory with this
utter dropkick.
I say 'one-sided' because I would be talking physics, and Saba would
be dribbling out of the corner of her infantile potty-mouth, issuing a
mixture of crude and provable outright lies, and patheticly juvenile
wishful feelings.
(I dare not call them "thoughts", for reasons that should be obvious
to those with IQs higher than a brick.)
See what the Watchtower does to you, folks?
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 12:24:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:14:38 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote:
"-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> skrev i melding news:SeSdnagk5fhGgNfZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
Oh--I get it. This is just another one of your lies for Jesus. Cut
that ***** out, will you?
BTW Christ did exists, say all honest researchers, I don't have to lie for that
fact.
IOW any researcher that say there is no evidence supporting the
Jesus myth is dishonest.
S
riiight.
S
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Evolution is a Fact |
22 Apr 2006 08:06:45 AM |
|
|
-=ACSaba Gracile-=AC wrote:
oh my God, the dogma.
They are not really transitions, but creations that are just as finished =
as the rest
of the creations you see.
What sicentific support do you have for this?
What is your scientific definition of "finished"
What is your scientific defintiion of "kind"
What is the scientifically established mechanism when prevents one of
these "kinds" from changing genetically until it becomes another
"kind"?
Speciation is macroevolution. It has been seen in the wild and in the
lab. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the only
scientifically supported explanation for this fact.
So would you have us believe that there are no transitional fossils for
no reaosn than that you - who have no academic qualifications
whatsoever in any of the requisite fields - declare it so? What kind
of juvenile ***** are you?
None of these are transitions?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
A snake with legs isn't a transition?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/najash_rionegrina_a_snake_with.p=
hp
A fish which was in process of growing legs isn't transitional?
http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/04/05/walking_towards_land.php
A "bird" which had fifty-fifty anatomy of a bird and a reptile is not
transitional?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
Uh-huh!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 07:29:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:13:13 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
oh my God, the dogma.
They are not really transitions, but creations that are just as finished as the rest
of the creations you see.
I suppose that was inevitable.
Once they realised how great the weight of evidence was, how many of the
"transitional fossils", that they demanded, actually existed, they had to do
something.
Denying that they are transitional is about the only thing left to them.
It is rather like arguing that because your father was a fully functional being,
in his own right, he could not be a transitional stage, between your grand
father, and your self
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
