| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nerd Gerl" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2004 02:41:08 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
.... Darwin admitted that the fossil record as it was known in his day
contradicted the general theory of
evolution. The ... record teaches away from general evolution, not
towards it. ...
www.gvn.net/~tstout/cs/pog_7.shtml
Stephen E. Jones: Creation/Evolution quotes: History #3: Darwin's
Origin of Species
My History: Darwin's Origin of Species page of my creation/evolution
quotes, which are mostly by evolutionists. ... Was speculative. Darwin
admitted was "grievously hypothetical" ...
members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/histry03.html
Archive: Darwin's Eye - Forums
.... there is not a designer. Even Darwin admitted the eye was too
complex for evolution to explain. ... which is something the
anti-evolution crowd as perfected to a near ...
www.cygnus-study.com/ubb/Archives/Archive-000001/HTML/19991215-2-000043.html
Is evolution theory universally accepted
.... People generally think that evolution is not merely a theory but a
proved fact ... the most vigorous supporter of Darwin, admitted that
"evolution was not an established theory but ...
www.creator-creation.com/evolution.htm
Fossils Was Darwin right
A site devoted to Scientific arguments in favour of Ceation ... Darwin
admitted that the fossil evidence was one of the weakest aspect of the
Theory of Evolution (see also ... this in itself does not prove
Evolution to be true ...
www.wasdarwinright.com/Fossils.asp
Stephen E. Jones: creation evolution quotes, darwinism (including
neo-Darwinism) #4,
E. Jones. Creation/Evolution Quotes: Darwinism #4 ... Darwin admitted
it seemed "absurd in the highest
degree" that the eye could have been formed by natural selection ...
www.members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/darwin04.html
Science that is not so Scientific
.... historical context of evolution helps one to ... evolution could
ever create anything so complicated as life. He took as his example
the eye which Darwin admitted made ...
www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/zimmerreview112101.htm
Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!
Common Sense for Today - A Christian Perspective on Today's Tough
Issues. ... I assume that all college
professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact ...
www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: DARWIN, A BIBLICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE
.... paraded the fossils they found as evidence for evolution... ... In
the early 1970's, when it ... These led to ...[what Darwin admitted
himself were]..absurd conclusions, but if ...
www.biblestudymanuals.net/darwin.htm
LaVergne Church of Christ | The Other Side of Evolution
.... The Other Side of Evolution (continued) ... Evolution, of course,
is not a fact. It has not been proved. Even Darwin admitted that it
was unproved and unprovable.8 ...
www.lavergnecoc.org/study/evolution/evolution4.html
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 06:40:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
darkstar@shell1.iglou.com (Keenan Clay Wilkie) spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:11 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
That's assuming that they do what you believe they do.
There is no proof of that.
You're right, there is no "proof". There's just lots and lots of evidence
suggesting such a thing. Similarly, there's no "proof" for gravitational
theory.
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 01:09:57 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rjaa409l35mrqk30q493b04to0livu7s7l@4ax.com...
snipping
:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 06:49:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:09:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rjaa409l35mrqk30q493b04to0livu7s7l@4ax.com...
snipping
:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 12:07:19 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8blb40llidbtd4rkcju3pgg00mb386vqtg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:09:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rjaa409l35mrqk30q493b04to0livu7s7l@4ax.com...
snipping
:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
Again, anyone who reads this can see for him/her self what the fossil record
offers. Dave can cling to his denial, but we all know it's just whistling
in the dark
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 01:05:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:07:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8blb40llidbtd4rkcju3pgg00mb386vqtg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:09:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rjaa409l35mrqk30q493b04to0livu7s7l@4ax.com...
snipping
:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't. But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject
what you like - it is not the Gospel you believe, but
yourselves." - St. Augustine
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 09:42:23 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vbbc4094fkt1a7fq2tn59ob79lq3kkinpq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:07:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8blb40llidbtd4rkcju3pgg00mb386vqtg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:09:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rjaa409l35mrqk30q493b04to0livu7s7l@4ax.com...
snipping
:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is
knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't. But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
As usual, Dave misses the point. Dave made an assertion, specifically,
"[T]here is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils, showing that
man came from anything else". My posting those websites was a direct
response to that assertion, showing that particular assertion was false.
Anyone interested in seeing for him/her self can use those links to see the
evidence that contradicts Dave's assertion.
Notice that Dave makes no coherent response, or produces any reason why
we should reject the evidence presented in those websites. If Dave can
present any reason why we should reject the fossils as being a clear
progression showing that humans evolved from other ape species, he's free to
provide such. As for Dave's site, again, anyone can check out for him/her
self the quality of "evidence" presented in the link he provided. Why he
thinks that presenting a Creationist apologist site is in any way similar to
producing actual evidence to contradics a specific claim he made, is
anyone's guess.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 09:41:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:42:23 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vbbc4094fkt1a7fq2tn59ob79lq3kkinpq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:07:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8blb40llidbtd4rkcju3pgg00mb386vqtg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:09:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rjaa409l35mrqk30q493b04to0livu7s7l@4ax.com...
snipping
:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is
knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't. But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
As usual, Dave misses the point. Dave made an assertion, specifically,
"[T]here is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils, showing that
man came from anything else".
IN RESPONSE to an assertion. You are the one who
misses the point. Pasting web links and pretending you
understand them, is dishonest. It shows that you
aren't equipped to make an argument.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent
designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 06:18:05 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tpje40pru5ugdshvbl8eqeb43617hruig5@4ax.com...
snipping
As usual, Dave misses the point. Dave made an assertion, specifically,
"[T]here is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils, showing that
man came from anything else".
IN RESPONSE to an assertion.
An assertion backed up by physical evidence.
You are the one who
misses the point. Pasting web links and pretending you
understand them, is dishonest.
What do you claim is dishonest, Dave, pasting the links or pretending to
understand them? Pasting links can hardly be seen as a dishonest tactic, as
it's a way of presenting information without duplicating the work of others.
If it's the "pretending to understand them", then you are making another
assertion that I don't understand the information in the links. On what
basis do you make that assertion? The links I provided show photographs of
a sequence of fossils showing just what you denied. In what way did I not
understand those links? Come on Dave, quit making baseless insults and deal
with the evidence.
It shows that you
aren't equipped to make an argument.
No, Dave by presenting you with the physical evidence that contradicts your
claim, it shows that you were not correct. I'm showing you that you are
wrong, and anyone who reads my posts can verify that what I said is correct.
Providing those links is not dishonest, it's showing that my statments are
backed up by the evidence. Trying to deny the evidence, and wave it away
is being dishonest, not only with your readers, but with yourself.
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 03:01:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:05:49 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:07:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8blb40llidbtd4rkcju3pgg00mb386vqtg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:09:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rjaa409l35mrqk30q493b04to0livu7s7l@4ax.com...
snipping
:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't. But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
If one of us reads the pages, comes up with a specific argument to refute
one of the arguments, and posts it here, do you know the material you
presented well enough to continue the discussion? Would you continue the
discussion if presented with such a complaint? If you answered yes to
both questions, I don't see why your link shouldn't be allowed. It's a
lot more efficient than the enormous regurgiquotes that show up here. I
see no double standard in being asked to read the oppositions pages if I
expect my debate opponent to be well versed in the subject matter I
address.
There's a big *but* here. Most of the folks here who support evolutionary
theory and have been here a while have read basically every one of those
arguments, understood them, and found them to be flawed. I'm sure that
Dana is one of those people. You, on the other hand, have been
demonstrating that you know essentially nothing about some of the subjects
you address (cosmology is a recent example). In that case, I hardly think
it's out of line to ask you to read up on the subject rather than
demanding that your opponent teach you everything. Basically you're
saying, "I disagree with your position and you're a biased Christian hater
for holding it. Please teach me about your position because I don't
understand it." Those two thoughts are incongruous.
Basically, you're attacking established science. The evidence was
presented long before you were around. People studied it, agreed on it,
consolidated it, and have plastered it all over the Internet, libraries,
and universities everywhere. You tend to dismiss it with something to the
effect of, "You have no evidence" when what you mean is, "I haven't seen
the evidence because I haven't gone looking for it. Bring it to me." A
more effective approach is something more to the effect of, "I have seen
commonly accepted piece of evidence X. I believe that it does not support
the theory because <here is where you insert your wisdom, analysis, and
evidence for your position>." If you can't think of and understand a
commonly accepted piece of evidence on your own, what are you doing
disagreeing with the theory to begin with?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 09:40:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:01:37 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't. But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
If one of us reads the pages, comes up with a specific argument to refute
one of the arguments, and posts it here, do you know the material you
presented well enough to continue the discussion?
You miss the point. It would be up to me to back up my
claim, if I made the claim. To paste a web link,
pretend I understand it all and then demand that you
prove it wrong, after I have made a positive claim, is
dishonest, yet that is what you people do.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"When we descend to details we can prove that no one
species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a
single species has changed): nor can we prove that
the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why
some species have changed and others have not.
The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult
to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 12:32:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:40:26 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:01:37 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't. But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
If one of us reads the pages, comes up with a specific argument to refute
one of the arguments, and posts it here, do you know the material you
presented well enough to continue the discussion?
You miss the point. It would be up to me to back up my
claim, if I made the claim. To paste a web link,
pretend I understand it all and then demand that you
prove it wrong, after I have made a positive claim, is
dishonest, yet that is what you people do.
You would just wet yourself with frustration trying to read some sort of
academic paper, wouldn't you? They often provide extensive lists of
references without reproducing the arguments made in the papers they cite.
It's not uncommon to simply mention the conclusions of a paper and
provide a citation for anybody to check the source for clarification.
It's the author's responsibility to understand and be able to explain the
use of the source material if it comes up in a discussion. You can bet
that most of them do. It's not dishonest. It's efficient.
Interestingly enough, this is where creationists often get called on
dishonesty. They misquote or do not fully comprehend the source material.
Or, just as bad, they take quotations or references from another paper
and cite them as if they had the original source material. That's why we
end up with disastrous misquotes and shameful misinterpretations of
papers.
Look at the pages referenced and challenge a part of one of them. Whoever
posted the link should be ready to talk about it. Have you tried? I'm
willing to bet that the people who posted the pages are going to be able
to discuss whatever you my have a problem with. Give it a go.
I can understand how a list of links with no other tests can rub you
the wrong way. True, it's usually nice to say, "The existence of shared
pseudogenes supports my argument" and provide a link, rather than just
providing a bare link. That probably wouldn't happen if you had
demonstrated that you understood the source material better, though.
Don't expect somebody to try to condense the sum of all biological
knowledge into a post for your convenience. Read the links.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 01:14:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:32:23 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:40:26 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:01:37 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't. But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
If one of us reads the pages, comes up with a specific argument to refute
one of the arguments, and posts it here, do you know the material you
presented well enough to continue the discussion?
You miss the point. It would be up to me to back up my
claim, if I made the claim. To paste a web link,
pretend I understand it all and then demand that you
prove it wrong, after I have made a positive claim, is
dishonest, yet that is what you people do.
You would just wet yourself with frustration trying to read some sort of
academic paper, wouldn't you?
And here comes the insults.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that
fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the
conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination
of the work of those paleontologists who have been
particularly concerned with the relationship between
paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that
of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness
of the fact that the record of evolution, like any
other historical record, must be construed within a
complex of particular and general preconceptions not
the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has
occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any
evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with
it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary
theories, and revolutionary theories and special
creationist theories and even historical theories."
(Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.
Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 05:56:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:14:01 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:32:23 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:40:26 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:01:37 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't. But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
If one of us reads the pages, comes up with a specific argument to refute
one of the arguments, and posts it here, do you know the material you
presented well enough to continue the discussion?
You miss the point. It would be up to me to back up my
claim, if I made the claim. To paste a web link,
pretend I understand it all and then demand that you
prove it wrong, after I have made a positive claim, is
dishonest, yet that is what you people do.
You would just wet yourself with frustration trying to read some sort of
academic paper, wouldn't you?
And here comes the insults.
Please stop snipping large chunks of text without marking it. That sort
of thing is bound to get you in trouble sooner or later, if it already
hasn't.
The point is this: It's common procedure to make a claim and then provide
a source for the claim. That keeps every scholarly paper from being
longer than the last. Repeating something that has already been clearly
stated in another source is silly. The only question is, if somebody
challenges your reasoning, will you be able to discuss the source
material, or were you just quoting it because you thought it would look
impressive?
People are giving you links that will help you learn about this stuff.
Read them. If something in them rubs you the wrong way, question it in
the newsgroup. People will respond because they know what's in the pages.
They're not going to write an "Evolution For Pastor Dave" book to explain
things that you should understand *before* debating.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 10:54:04 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vbbc4094fkt1a7fq2tn59ob79lq3kkinpq@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:07:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8blb40llidbtd4rkcju3pgg00mb386vqtg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:09:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rjaa409l35mrqk30q493b04to0livu7s7l@4ax.com...
snipping
:
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
Argument by assertion again, Dave.
The following are not for Dave, as he doesn't have the intellectual
flexibility to comprehend these. The links below are for anyone who
wishes
to examine Dave's assertion.
I don't expect Dave to be able to answer any of this in a logical
manner,
or make a coherent response. This is just to show that Dave is knowingly
speaking a falsehood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/cenozoic.htm
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookHumEvol.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/timeline.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Well, folks, did I call it or what. Just as I predicted, Dave has no
coherent response, just another assertion and a false one at that.
I am not the one claiming that it does. You seem to
think that pasting web links proves your claim. It
doesn't.
Then your continual posting of dishonest, out-of-context quotes proves
what exactly?
But to use your logic...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
There. Now evolution has been refuted. Don't think
so? Then prove it hasn't. That is the same approach
you just used.
LOL! You should learn the difference between scientific evidence and
creationist anecdotes.
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDist Paradox No 23: The fact that the laws of the universe are
perfect for life is evidence for a Designer. The fact that the laws of
the universe can't produce life is evidence for a Designer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 09:25:52 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution? What
is missing? What sorts of evidence would you consider valid?
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 11:51:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:25:52 +0000 (UTC), Stanley
Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution?
No sir, I did not make the claim. YOU tell me how they
DO support it.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
www.icr.org
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marguerita" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 11:58:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:25:52 +0000 (UTC), Stanley
Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution?
No sir, I did not make the claim. YOU tell me how they
DO support it.
The fossil record is just one small piece of support for the existence
of evolution by natural selection, so even if you claim that it
provides no proof, that doesn't detract for the wealth of non-fossil
evidence.
Even the most basic of biology courses usually involve simple
experiments that prove that evolution exists. You can take a packet of
plant seeds, grow them, and selectively breed certain characteristics
which then dominate the population Same goes for animals - look at the
incredible variety of dog species that have resulted from selective
breeding. The mechanisms of evolution are well known and have been
replicated in thousands of labs, and studied from the macroscopic
level down to the sub-cellular level. We can see changes taking place
in many animal species as a result of changes in their environment. If
you pollute an environment to the extent that the trees darken in
colour, certain species of moth become darker and darker. That occurs
over an easily observable timescale.
The fossil record can not completely demonstrate the evolutionary
process in man simply because not enough of them have been found. The
circumstances leading to the creation of a fossil are specfic and
rare, so that's no surprise. What evidence there is does support an
overall evolutionary mechanism though, and there are enough pieces to
clearly show physical changes in hominid species over time.
There is recent evidence of evolution in humans... the fact that
people living in different areas with different cultural values and
environments have different physical characteristics is proof enough.
Add to that DNA evidence and what we know of genetic mechanisms and
you have a well-proven scientific law.
I think that anyone who denies the process of evolution simply doesn't
understand it. The same has always been true in the church's battle
against the truth though. If you really wanted to, I'm sure you could
use arguments similar to the ones you've used in here to prove that
the Earth does not revolve around the sun.
M
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 12:42:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:58:07 +0000 (UTC), Marguerita
<marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> spake thusly:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:25:52 +0000 (UTC), Stanley
Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution?
No sir, I did not make the claim. YOU tell me how they
DO support it.
The fossil record is just one small piece of support for the existence
of evolution by natural selection, so even if you claim that it
provides no proof, that doesn't detract for the wealth of non-fossil
evidence.
In other words, you wish to avoid the fossil record. I
don't blame you. It is embarrassing for you.
Even the most basic of biology courses usually involve simple
experiments that prove that evolution exists.
They prove microevolution exists and I agree with that.
That is entirely different than what you claim
happened.
You can take a packet of
plant seeds, grow them, and selectively breed certain characteristics
which then dominate the population Same goes for animals - look at the
incredible variety of dog species that have resulted from selective
breeding.
See above. The plants are still plants and the dogs
are still dogs. That isn't all you people preach.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of
creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then
one would expect to find fossils of transitional
creatures which were a bit like what went before them
and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet
found any evidence of such transitional creatures.
This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil
record which gradualists expected to fill when rock
strata of the proper age had been found. In the last
decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of
all divisions of the last 500 million years and no
transitional forms were contained in them." (The
Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marguerita" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 01:36:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:42:54 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:58:07 +0000 (UTC), Marguerita
<marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> spake thusly:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:25:52 +0000 (UTC), Stanley
Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution?
No sir, I did not make the claim. YOU tell me how they
DO support it.
The fossil record is just one small piece of support for the existence
of evolution by natural selection, so even if you claim that it
provides no proof, that doesn't detract for the wealth of non-fossil
evidence.
In other words, you wish to avoid the fossil record. I
don't blame you. It is embarrassing for you.
How did you manage to get from 'The fossil record is just one small
piece of support for the existence of evolution by natural selection'
to the idea that it's an embarrassment for me?
Even the most basic of biology courses usually involve simple
experiments that prove that evolution exists.
They prove microevolution exists and I agree with that.
That is entirely different than what you claim
happened.
What do you mean by microevolution - the example is on the scale of
species evolution. Nothing very micro about that.
You can take a packet of
plant seeds, grow them, and selectively breed certain characteristics
which then dominate the population Same goes for animals - look at the
incredible variety of dog species that have resulted from selective
breeding.
See above. The plants are still plants and the dogs
are still dogs.
The dogs are not wolves. That's the point. There are major
physiological and behavioural differences. That happened over a very
small timescale.
That isn't all you people preach.
What's with all this 'you people' guff? I'm getting mighty tired of
people assuming they know what my beliefs are and I haven't preached
to anyone... I've just replied to a post of yours which demonstrated a
lack of understanding of the evolutionary process.
M
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 01:50:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 19:36:52 +0000 (UTC), Marguerita
<marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> spake thusly:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:42:54 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:58:07 +0000 (UTC), Marguerita
<marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> spake thusly:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:25:52 +0000 (UTC), Stanley
Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution?
No sir, I did not make the claim. YOU tell me how they
DO support it.
The fossil record is just one small piece of support for the existence
of evolution by natural selection, so even if you claim that it
provides no proof, that doesn't detract for the wealth of non-fossil
evidence.
In other words, you wish to avoid the fossil record. I
don't blame you. It is embarrassing for you.
How did you manage to get from 'The fossil record is just one small
piece of support for the existence of evolution by natural selection'
to the idea that it's an embarrassment for me?
If it weren't, then you wouldn't have tried to shift
gears and mention other things.
Even the most basic of biology courses usually involve simple
experiments that prove that evolution exists.
They prove microevolution exists and I agree with that.
That is entirely different than what you claim
happened.
What do you mean by microevolution - the example is on the scale of
species evolution. Nothing very micro about that.
Sure there is, unless you can prove that a canidae came
from a non-canidae.
You can take a packet of
plant seeds, grow them, and selectively breed certain characteristics
which then dominate the population Same goes for animals - look at the
incredible variety of dog species that have resulted from selective
breeding.
See above. The plants are still plants and the dogs
are still dogs.
The dogs are not wolves. That's the point. There are major
physiological and behavioural differences. That happened over a very
small timescale.
That is microevolution. They are both canidae.
That isn't all you people preach.
What's with all this 'you people' guff? I'm getting mighty tired of
people assuming they know what my beliefs are and I haven't preached
to anyone... I've just replied to a post of yours which demonstrated a
lack of understanding of the evolutionary process.
I do know what your beliefs are.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 09:20:08 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:25:52 +0000 (UTC), Stanley
Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution?
No sir, I did not make the claim. YOU tell me how they
DO support it.
The meet predictions of the evolutionary model. They form definite
branching sequences. Fossils are less and less similar to modern
species as one goes back in time. Relatively more complex forms are
always relatively recent. Some fossils have answered questions as to
how certain features could evolve (e.g. the mammalian jaw).
I could extract long passages from some of my textbooks to further
expand on these points, thought the effort would likely be wasted.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 12:41:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:20:08 +0000 (UTC), Stanley
Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:25:52 +0000 (UTC), Stanley
Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.
Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution?
No sir, I did not make the claim. YOU tell me how they
DO support it.
The meet predictions of the evolutionary model.
Again, that's a claim. HOW do they meet them and can
you prove that the prediction came before the data?
They form definite branching sequences.
Where exactly? Define exact branches. All you're
doing so far, is claiming it is so.
Fossils are less and less similar to modern
species as one goes back in time.
That is a claim. How can you prove it to be true?
Relatively more complex forms are
always relatively recent.
See above.
Some fossils have answered questions as to
how certain features could evolve (e.g. the mammalian jaw).
How does this prove that one kind came from another?
I could extract long passages from some of my textbooks to further
expand on these points, thought the effort would likely be wasted.
I want YOU to tell me how it is supported.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
05 Mar 2004 11:54:06 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fsdh4012f8uehi65a8fqk0ghpddotk8pvo@4ax.com:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:10:07 +0000 (UTC), catshark
<catshark@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Darwin said what he said because he was *honest*
If he was honest, he would have moved on to something
else, instead of promoting a falsehood, for which he
had no evidence.
Darwin was a lot more honest, both with himself and with his readers than
YOU are, "Pastor." Before you cast stones in that pond you have a lot of
work to get the beam out of your own eye. And all you've done so far is
sit around denying that it exists. You're like an atheist denying God
only you have more evidence before you of what you're denying than the
atheist has. So what's YOUR excuse?
and it had nothing to do with, "compelling
evidence". Darwin readily admitted that the evidence
for his idea had not been found, so your claim of
"compelling evidence" is dishonest at best.
What Darwin was talking about, which you would have known if the quote
was in context, was whether "the plants anciently introduced into
Australia would have undergone some modification" under his theory and
the meaning of the *evidence* that they had not. Of that question, he
said:
. . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to
me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on
*other* arguments. [Emphasis mine]
He then went on to say that "no *one* species" could be shown to have
changed into another by means of fossil evidence but that "the belief
in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general
considerations" and "a host of facts", which he found compelling
enough to outweigh any difficulties "[w]hen we descend to details".
He firmly held that Natural Selection was a "_vera causa_" (try
looking it up, if you have a scrap of intellectual honesty left) and
that it explained the change in life over time.
That's a lie. Darwin had no "host of facts".
There is no truth left in you, sir. You are an abomination in the sight
of God, teaching children to lie and lying to them for profit. As I have
stated before, I believe you to be an excommunicate. Now I'm seeing a
side that indicates outright apostasy. You do not, apparently, believe
in Jesus. Your faith is in your ability to lie about men dead and gone
and get people who have not read their words to believe YOUR words about
those words. You are lower than the muck at the bottom of the swamp, sir
and no amount of imprecations and threats of hellfire are going to
convince me otherwise. I would, however, like to see a replay of you at
your final judgement. I can just see you trying to play the same lies to
the Source of all Truth! You're probably even stupid enough to TRY to
lie to God!
What did the devil offer you for your soul? Sex? Money? Power over
others? Or are you one of those complete fools who offer up the eternal
gift of Jesus Christ for a pat on the back from some fellow heretic?
It's time to come out of Babylon and get with the program, son. Jesus is
a very, very patient man (and He is also God) but His patience is not as
eternal as His love and His love ultimately carries with it the
requirement that you abandon sin voluntarily. Pray to Him and He will
help you. Pray to your own ego's reflection and the devil will step in
and give you false comfort.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
06 Mar 2004 10:33:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca>, Message ID:
<Xns94A364C0F168Fdoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211> wrote in alt.atheism;
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fsdh4012f8uehi65a8fqk0ghpddotk8pvo@4ax.com:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:10:07 +0000 (UTC), catshark
<catshark@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Darwin said what he said because he was *honest*
If he was honest, he would have moved on to something
else, instead of promoting a falsehood, for which he
had no evidence.
Darwin was a lot more honest, both with himself and with his readers than
YOU are, "Pastor." Before you cast stones in that pond you have a lot of
work to get the beam out of your own eye. And all you've done so far is
sit around denying that it exists. You're like an atheist denying God
only you have more evidence before you of what you're denying than the
atheist has. So what's YOUR excuse?
What is there to 'deny?'
(snip)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 08:52:12 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<oq1740ln2aajmun2et0lep35csosb7pn6p@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:11 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
That's assuming that they do what you believe they do.
There is no proof of that.
None that you would comprehend anyway, Friar Dave. As a matter of
fact, is there *ANY* kind of evidence that you would *EVER* regard as
proof that evolution is indeed the best scientific explanation for the
development and diversity of life on Earth? Or are you like those
priests in lab coats at the ICR and AiG? At least they're honest about
what constitutes proof for them;-
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact
that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people
who do not possess all information." -- Answers in Genesis',
"Statement of Faith":-
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)
Tsk! Tsk! More dishonesty Friar Dave?!
This is yet another quote-mined quotation taken out of context. In
"The New Evolutionary Timetable", Stanley was talking about fossil
finds in the Big Horn Basin of Wyoming, when he said;- (the bit you
selectively quoted is in all capital letters)
"Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early
Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent
the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many
types of modern mammals came into being. The Bighorn Basin, in the
shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received large volumes of sediment from
the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in the Age of
Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record
here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits
exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Big Horn Basin
provide a nearly continuous local depositional record for this
interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed
that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in such
a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has
now shown otherwise. SPECIES THAT WERE ONCE THOUGHT TO HAVE TURNED
INTO OTHERS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO OVERLAP IN TIME WITH THESE ALLEGED
DESCENDANTS. IN FACT, THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT CONVINCINGLY DOCUMENT
A SINGLE TRANSITION FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER. Furthermore, species
lasted for astoundingly long periods of time. David M. Schankler has
recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known
from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Big Horn Basin. Very
few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and
their average duration was greater than a million years." Stanley,
S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95.
So, once again you have quoted dishonestly and tried to wilfully
misrepresent what the author was really saying. You are probably
blissfully unaware that Stanley was attempting to show that the
"punctuated equilibrium" model of evolution is correct, rather than
the traditional gradualist model. The fact that there are serious
difficulties with either theory does not change the fact that you have
incorrectly applied the quotation to the fossil record as a whole,
when the real context clearly limits its application to the Big Horn
Basin. Stanley's intent is also clearly shown by this later statement,
in the same book;-
"A frequent claim of creationists is that the fossil record
contradicts [the] concept of evolution. One argument here is that
there are no transitional forms between distinctive groups of animals
or plants. This is not true, and what is most important is that
evolutionists do not need dozens of examples to make their case...
Quoting certain scientists who have claimed Archaeopteryx to be fully
birdlike, creationists have dismissed this interesting form as
meaningless, but they are only telling a half-truth. Other scientists
have claimed Archaeopteryx to be remarkably dinosaurian -- to be a
dinosaur with a wishbone and feathers! This disagreement is no
embarrassment to evolution. Quite the reverse. It underscores the
transitional character of the famous fossil. Archaeopteryx represents
a single intermediate form. Elsewhere, despite the punctuational
nature of many transitions, we have available series of forms that
more fully represent steps in the origins of certain major groups."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the
Origin of Species, 1981, pp. 174-176.
Caught out again... huh, Friar Dave? When will you ever learn that
blindly cutting and pasting from creationist web-sites can be very,
very embarrassing.
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur
at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model)
are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups." --
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" Science and
Creationism, p. 124 (1984)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 09:53:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 02:52:12 +0000 (UTC),
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<oq1740ln2aajmun2et0lep35csosb7pn6p@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:11 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.
That's assuming that they do what you believe they do.
There is no proof of that.
None that you would comprehend anyway, Friar Dave. As a matter of
fact, is there *ANY* kind of evidence that you would *EVER* regard as
proof that evolution is indeed the best scientific explanation for the
development and diversity of life on Earth? Or are you like those
priests in lab coats at the ICR and AiG? At least they're honest about
what constitutes proof for them;-
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact
that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people
who do not possess all information." -- Answers in Genesis',
"Statement of Faith":-
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)
Tsk! Tsk! More dishonesty Friar Dave?!
This is yet another quote-mined quotation taken out of context. In
"The New Evolutionary Timetable", Stanley was talking about fossil
finds in the Big Horn Basin of Wyoming, when he said;- (the bit you
selectively quoted is in all capital letters)
"Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early
Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent
the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many
types of modern mammals came into being. The Bighorn Basin, in the
shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received large volumes of sediment from
the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in the Age of
Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record
here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits
exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Big Horn Basin
provide a nearly continuous local depositional record for this
interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed
that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in such
a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has
now shown otherwise. SPECIES THAT WERE ONCE THOUGHT TO HAVE TURNED
INTO OTHERS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO OVERLAP IN TIME WITH THESE ALLEGED
DESCENDANTS. IN FACT, THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT CONVINCINGLY DOCUMENT
A SINGLE TRANSITION FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER. Furthermore, species
lasted for astoundingly long periods of time. David M. Schankler has
recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known
from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Big Horn Basin. Very
few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and
their average duration was greater than a million years." Stanley,
S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95.
So, once again you have quot | | |
