| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Anonymous" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2006 06:12:41 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin thoughts on Geology |
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
.
|
|
| User: "dh" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 12:43:58 PM |
|
|
"Anonymous" <BigappleRemailer@bigapple.yi.org> wrote in message
news:SFVMP5R038741.800474537@anonymous...
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was "wrong" with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: "Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
Yeah. That was in chapter 6 of his book and he went on to address this
question. Since then, in fact, we have found transitional forms.
A pity the Designer didn't arrange the planet to protect fossils better. I
thought he was Intelligent?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
24 Jan 2006 07:37:26 PM |
|
|
"Anonymous" <BigappleRemailer@bigapple.yi.org> wrote in message
news:SFVMP5R038741.800474537@anonymous...
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support?
Well, since there is zero fossil evidence suggesting creation and abundance
of fossil evidence suggesting nested heirarchies, then the answer is
obvious.
Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was "wrong" with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: "Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
You conveniently snipped out Darwin's statement immediately following this
(which has been noted by another poster).
Additionally, the fossil record is rich with evidence to support
evolution...if you have an alternative hypothesis based on that evidence,
please present it.
JR
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
24 Jan 2006 08:37:17 PM |
|
|
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:qDABf.16398$Yu.13519@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
the fossil record is rich with evidence to support evolution...if
you have an alternative hypothesis based on that evidence,
please present it.
JR
If macroevolution was what had occurred..there would be billions of transi-
tional forms in the fossil record. The lack of these transitional forms is in it-
self proof that macroevolution never happened. Nevertheless, this theory is
still accepted among the credulous who dare not question the hoax that has
deceived them.
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do
we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
-- Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Ch 6, p134
"Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal
at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter to the author that he
didn't know of any real evidence of evolutionary transitions either among living
or fossilized organisms" "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther Sunderland ch.1
"Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict
when they say THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Comm" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
24 Jan 2006 09:43:08 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:xvBBf.1816$1n4.316@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qDABf.16398$Yu.13519@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
If macroevolution was what had occurred..there would be billions of
transi-
tional forms in the fossil record. The lack of these transitional forms is
in it-
self proof that macroevolution never happened. Nevertheless, this theory
is still accepted among the credulous who dare not question the hoax that
has
deceived them.
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why
do
we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
-- Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Ch
6, p134
Because Darwin knew nothing about punctuated equilibrium. Sometimes there
are NO intermediate species. Genes tell a much more exact story, however -
and genetics wasn't around during Darwin's time, either.
"Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious
journal
at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter to the author
that he
didn't know of any real evidence of evolutionary transitions either among
living
or fossilized organisms" "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther Sunderland ch.1
"Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict
when they say THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson
You can see plenty of them with hominids, btw.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 08:32:26 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:xvBBf.1816$1n4.316@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qDABf.16398$Yu.13519@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
the fossil record is rich with evidence to support evolution...if you
have an alternative hypothesis based on that evidence, please present it.
JR
If macroevolution was what had occurred..there would be billions of
transi-
tional forms in the fossil record. The lack of these transitional forms is
in it-
self proof that macroevolution never happened. Nevertheless, this theory
is still accepted among the credulous who dare not question the hoax that
has
deceived them.
Thank you for *not* answering my question. I asked you your alternative
hypothesis on the transitional fossils that *have* been found. You merely
regurgitated your earlier assertion.
So, please tell us your alternative view on:
* Fish to Amphibians
o Osteolepis
o Eusthenopteron
o Panderichthys
o Elginerpeton
o Obruchevichthys
o Hynerpeton
o Tulerpeton
o Acanthostega
o Ichthyostega
o Pederpes finneyae
o Eryops
* Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
o Proterogyrinus
o Limnoscelis
o Tseajaia
o Solenodonsaurus
o Hylonomus
o Paleothyris
* Synapsid reptiles to mammals
o Protoclepsydrops
o Clepsydrops
o Dimetrodon
o Procynosuchus
* Diapsid reptiles to birds
o Compsognathus
o Protoavis
o Archeopteryx
o Changchengornis
o Confuciusornis
o Ichthyornis
* Evolution of the Horse
o Hyracotherium
o Mesohippus
o Parahippus
o Merychippus
o Pliohippus
o Equus
JR
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hearne" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
06 Feb 2006 01:43:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:xvBBf.1816$1n4.316@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
< > wrote in message
news:qDABf.16398$Yu.13519@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
the fossil record is rich with evidence to support evolution...if you
have an alternative hypothesis based on that evidence, please present it.
JR
If macroevolution was what had occurred..there would be billions of
transi-
tional forms in the fossil record. The lack of these transitional forms is
in it-
self proof that macroevolution never happened. Nevertheless, this theory
is still accepted among the credulous who dare not question the hoax that
has
deceived them.
Thank you for *not* answering my question. I asked you your alternative
hypothesis on the transitional fossils that *have* been found. You merely
regurgitated your earlier assertion.
So, please tell us your alternative view on:
* Fish to Amphibians
o Osteolepis
o Eusthenopteron
o Panderichthys
o Elginerpeton
o Obruchevichthys
o Hynerpeton
o Tulerpeton
o Acanthostega
o Ichthyostega
o Pederpes finneyae
o Eryops
* Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
o Proterogyrinus
o Limnoscelis
o Tseajaia
o Solenodonsaurus
o Hylonomus
o Paleothyris
* Synapsid reptiles to mammals
o Protoclepsydrops
o Clepsydrops
o Dimetrodon
o Procynosuchus
* Diapsid reptiles to birds
o Compsognathus
o Protoavis
o Archeopteryx
o Changchengornis
o Confuciusornis
o Ichthyornis
* Evolution of the Horse
o Hyracotherium
o Mesohippus
o Parahippus
o Merychippus
o Pliohippus
o Equus
JR
<snip>
Thank you for this fascinating list, it may be very useful to me as a
template.
I think that the reason that there are such glaring breaks in the
archaeological record, is that during times of extinction, the survivors
exist in small pockets around the earth. If we were to take many samples
from sites worldwide and combine them, we might have a more complete
fossil record.
I believe that evolution usually occurs after a natural disaster,
including vulcanism, flood, disease and collisions with space debris.
While all is well, evolution occurs on a lesser, or at least a slower scale.
That is, evolution usually occurs when the environment dictates it, and
after a disaster of epic proportions, there may not be many survivors;
therefore the geologic evidence to be discovered may be widely dispersed.
Also note that the ice ages which have occurred over the past million
years or so. Glaciation has scoured very deeply into the surface of the
Earth, destroying a great deal of evidence, both archaeological and
paleontological.
The present advancing studies of fossilized DNA may give us a better
course for determining a smoother timeline, with fewer "missing links".
Michael
--
RLU #352695
35.14N - 101.50W
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nicholas" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 04:05:11 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qDABf.16398$Yu.13519@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
the fossil record is rich with evidence to support evolution...if you
have an alternative hypothesis based on that evidence, please present it.
JR
If macroevolution was what had occurred..there would be billions of transi-
tional forms in the fossil record. The lack of these transitional forms
is in it-
self proof that macroevolution never happened. Nevertheless, this theory
is still accepted among the credulous who dare not question the hoax
that has
deceived them.
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do
we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
-- Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Ch
6, p134
Darwin himself answered your objection, and in response to your
selective quote. There are transitional forms, if you insist on calling
them that. Every fossil is a transitional form from one arbitrary point
in evolution to another. You are a transitional form from our past to
whatever our future form will be. What is commonly referred to as a
specied is an artefact of own bias in time and the biases in the fossil
record (ie: what we have found so far). It is imposing an artificial
point of reference (which does help ease of use in most cases) on a
continuum, much like ignoring the second and minutes of time and
insisting on referring to hours only. With that kind of mindset it would
be impossible to see how time could advance.
If you want to see a geographical example of what happens in time with
evolution, read up on the Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gulls.
Nicholas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
24 Jan 2006 08:52:29 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qDABf.16398$Yu.13519@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
the fossil record is rich with evidence to support evolution...if you
have an alternative hypothesis based on that evidence, please present it.
JR
If macroevolution was what had occurred..there would be billions of transi-
tional forms in the fossil record. (snip)
Do you know anything about documented fossil species?
Try looking at the "Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology" (usually
available at a college or university library) for documentation on just
a small part of the fossil evidence.
Oh, and why billions of transitional forms? Did you know that all
species are evolving all the time?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 09:00:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:37:17 +0000, Andrew wrote:
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qDABf.16398$Yu.13519@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
the fossil record is rich with evidence to support evolution...if you
have an alternative hypothesis based on that evidence, please present
it.
JR
If macroevolution was what had occurred..there would be billions of
transi- tional forms in the fossil record. The lack of these transitional
forms is in it- self proof that macroevolution never happened.
For that statement to be true, we would have to know that at least some
members of your so-called "transitional forms" fossilized, and that we
have found every fossil. Since we don't know if 'a' is true, and we know
with near certainty that 'b' is false, you are full-o-*****.
While we are at it, would you care to provide a definition of
"transitional form"? I had always thought that amphibians were
transitional forms between lobe-finned fish and reptiles. Do you not
believe that amphibians exist?
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 02:04:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:37:17 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:qDABf.16398$Yu.13519@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
the fossil record is rich with evidence to support evolution...if
you have an alternative hypothesis based on that evidence,
please present it.
JR
If macroevolution was what had occurred..there would be billions of transi-
tional forms in the fossil record. The lack of these transitional forms is in it-
self proof that macroevolution never happened. Nevertheless, this theory is
still accepted among the credulous who dare not question the hoax that has
deceived them.
Ah, yes, the Andrew ignoramous who drinks deep of Cretinist excrement.
Drool elsewhere moron.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: James Hutton |
26 Jan 2006 06:43:00 PM |
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was "wrong" with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: "Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
James Hutton
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22James+Hutton%22&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22James+Hutton%22&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22James+Hutton%22&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=James%20Hutton&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
24 Jan 2006 06:23:06 PM |
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
And he finishes the paragraph thusly: "The explanation lies, as I
believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 01:44:55 PM |
|
|
In article <SFVMP5R038741.800474537@anonymous> Anonymous <BigappleRemailer@bigapple.yi.org> writes:
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was "wrong" with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: "Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
Oh, it's worse than that: this is only one of THREE huge
objections Darwin raised to his own theory.
1) according to arguably the best physicist of his day,
Lord Kelvin, the rate of cooling of the sun indicated that
the earth could be only a few hundreds of millions of years
old, perhaps only a few tens of millions. Darwin points
out that this, if true, means that his theory could not
possibly be right; there simply had not been enough time.
2) according to heredity as it was thought of in Darwin's day,
an organism which bore a useful variation could not
possibly have any effect on the entire species, as this
variation would be immediately be diluted out of existence,
swamped in the huge breeding pool filled with other members of its
species which did not bear this variation.
3) according to the paleontology of Darwin's day...
well, you covered this one above.
There you go. Three reasons given by Darwin himself which
suggested his theory could not possibly be right.
Hope this helps.
Oh, just one more thing: the physics of Darwin's day could
not answer objection #1 -- nuclear reactions were
unknown at that time. Modern physics has answered this.
And biologists of Darwin's day were ignorant of the
solution to objection #2 -- heredity is quantized,
not continuous. Modern genetics has answered this.
So: shall we discuss the difference between paleontology
in Darwin's day and paleontology today?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
24 Jan 2006 10:32:10 PM |
|
|
Let's see... long-debunked lies, cowardice (using remailer services); the
holier-than-thou arrogance is missing so far, but I bet that will follow
soon.
Congratulations. You passed the test and now can proudly bear the title
"fundy cretinist" (or IDiot, if you prefer). Now if you show the missing
arrogance you'll get promoted to "fucktard cretinist". Way to go...
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
24 Jan 2006 07:16:53 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jan 2006 00:12:41 -0000, Anonymous
<BigappleRemailer@bigapple.yi.org> wrote:
- Refer: <SFVMP5R038741.800474537@anonymous>
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was ?rong?with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: ?hy then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory.?
So, the anonymous craven coward liar-fer-god believes that special
creation is testable, and a comparable concept to the fact of
evolution?
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 08:47:50 AM |
|
|
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 09:33:58 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Fooj, speciation is observed, not imaginary. Look up "polyploidy".
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 09:35:25 AM |
|
|
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:GTMBf.1758$wk5.1456@news02.roc.ny...
Fooj wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Fooj, speciation is observed, not imaginary. Look up "polyploidy".
Yes, but it hard to type in a Google search with your fingers in your
ears...
JR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 12:20:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:35:25 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1VMBf.14161$_S7.4958@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:GTMBf.1758$wk5.1456@news02.roc.ny...
Fooj wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Fooj, speciation is observed, not imaginary. Look up "polyploidy".
Yes, but it hard to type in a Google search with your fingers in your
ears...
JR
One of his hands is on his jug of hooch, and the other on his shotgun.
His hog gets an occasional touch up of lipstick when he wants to try
experiments on "speciation" between porcines and homo sapiens.
(Although in his case 'sapiens' is a gross mis-nomer.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hearne" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
06 Feb 2006 02:12:15 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:35:25 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1VMBf.14161$_S7.4958@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:GTMBf.1758$wk5.1456@news02.roc.ny...
Fooj wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Fooj, speciation is observed, not imaginary. Look up "polyploidy".
Yes, but it hard to type in a Google search with your fingers in your
ears...
JR
One of his hands is on his jug of hooch, and the other on his shotgun.
His hog gets an occasional touch up of lipstick when he wants to try
experiments on "speciation" between porcines and homo sapiens.
(Although in his case 'sapiens' is a gross mis-nomer.)
Sorry, but the President just forbade the above sort of research during
his State of the Union speech last week. Apparently, he is also troubled
by hooved and horned demons who reside under his bedroom window.
!Isn't it wonderful to have such modern, scientifically advanced folks
running our lives?
He actually did mention cloning and cross-breeding humans and animals.
Of course this can't happen from direct mating, but the Bible does
forbid it anyway. I think that more than likely, the writers of the
Bible were not really that concerned with offspring, or inheritance
rights, etc. Also, if it hadn't been happening, they wouldn't have made
it illegal.
The Indians used to joke about how the Pilgrims died while they were
surrounded by food, and also how they died from disease when there was
plenty of water to bathe in.
The Pilgrims, on the other hand, did not wish to be naked, or wash off
their "protective coating", and, since they were descended from squires,
did not know how to live outside of the protection of the King's
community. So they died.
Would you have us all go back to living as squires?
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
06 Feb 2006 02:57:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:12:15 GMT, Michael Hearne <here@home.us> wrote:
- Refer: <zxDFf.13117$vU2.8400@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:35:25 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1VMBf.14161$_S7.4958@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:GTMBf.1758$wk5.1456@news02.roc.ny...
Fooj wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Fooj, speciation is observed, not imaginary. Look up "polyploidy".
Yes, but it hard to type in a Google search with your fingers in your
ears...
JR
One of his hands is on his jug of hooch, and the other on his shotgun.
His hog gets an occasional touch up of lipstick when he wants to try
experiments on "speciation" between porcines and homo sapiens.
(Although in his case 'sapiens' is a gross mis-nomer.)
Sorry, but the President just forbade the above sort of research during
his State of the Union speech last week. Apparently, he is also troubled
by hooved and horned demons who reside under his bedroom window.
I managed to avoid listening to this edifying episode.
Was it all hooved animals, or just those with cloven-hooves?
If I remember rightly, "My Pet Goat" has been haunting the Emporer of
the Universe since, now when was it?
11 Sep 2001 or something?
Perhaps that's the reference?
!Isn't it wonderful to have such modern, scientifically advanced folks
running our lives?
"Our"?
Not me, mate!
Or did you mis-spell "ruining our lives"?
Non-Haliburton shareholders around the globe can identify with that.
He actually did mention cloning and cross-breeding humans and animals.
Of course this can't happen from direct mating, but the Bible does
forbid it anyway. I think that more than likely, the writers of the
Bible were not really that concerned with offspring, or inheritance
rights, etc. Also, if it hadn't been happening, they wouldn't have made
it illegal.
The Indians used to joke about how the Pilgrims died while they were
surrounded by food, and also how they died from disease when there was
plenty of water to bathe in.
The Pilgrims, on the other hand, did not wish to be naked, or wash off
their "protective coating", and, since they were descended from squires,
did not know how to live outside of the protection of the King's
community. So they died.
Would you have us all go back to living as squires?
Me?
I don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't negatively impact on
me, or any of my descendents, or those that I respect and care about.
Michael
Michael.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Hearne" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
06 Feb 2006 03:58:23 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:12:15 GMT, Michael Hearne <here@home.us> wrote:
- Refer: <zxDFf.13117$vU2.8400@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:35:25 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1VMBf.14161$_S7.4958@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:GTMBf.1758$wk5.1456@news02.roc.ny...
Fooj wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Fooj, speciation is observed, not imaginary. Look up "polyploidy".
Yes, but it hard to type in a Google search with your fingers in your
ears...
JR
One of his hands is on his jug of hooch, and the other on his shotgun.
His hog gets an occasional touch up of lipstick when he wants to try
experiments on "speciation" between porcines and homo sapiens.
(Although in his case 'sapiens' is a gross mis-nomer.)
Sorry, but the President just forbade the above sort of research during
his State of the Union speech last week. Apparently, he is also troubled
by hooved and horned demons who reside under his bedroom window.
I managed to avoid listening to this edifying episode.
Was it all hooved animals, or just those with cloven-hooves?
If I remember rightly, "My Pet Goat" has been haunting the Emporer of
the Universe since, now when was it?
11 Sep 2001 or something?
Perhaps that's the reference?
!Isn't it wonderful to have such modern, scientifically advanced folks
running our lives?
"Our"?
Not me, mate!
Or did you mis-spell "ruining our lives"?
Non-Haliburton shareholders around the globe can identify with that.
He actually did mention cloning and cross-breeding humans and animals.
Of course this can't happen from direct mating, but the Bible does
forbid it anyway. I think that more than likely, the writers of the
Bible were not really that concerned with offspring, or inheritance
rights, etc. Also, if it hadn't been happening, they wouldn't have made
it illegal.
The Indians used to joke about how the Pilgrims died while they were
surrounded by food, and also how they died from disease when there was
plenty of water to bathe in.
The Pilgrims, on the other hand, did not wish to be naked, or wash off
their "protective coating", and, since they were descended from squires,
did not know how to live outside of the protection of the King's
community. So they died.
Would you have us all go back to living as squires?
Me?
I don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't negatively impact on
me, or any of my descendents, or those that I respect and care about.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Michael Hearne
Michael.
Well, then pray they don't bring back "Transportation". By the way, how
are our cousins in Rhodesia doing these days?
Sorry, perhaps I've replied out of order. I was actually addressing the
person who was making the the disparaging remarks concerning "hillbillys"
I believe in science, not superstition. In any case, just in case you're
"across the pond" from me, you have problems of your own. The way the
newscasters are telling it, there's going to be a new crusade, but this
time it's going from east to west.
The reason those fools don't riot over here is because a lot of our
citizens would just show up and blow them away. Forget all the "Let's
Just Get Along" nonsense, just get rid of the threat.
No, I did not misspell "running" but if you know anything about
programming, perhaps you noticed the "NOT" symbol preceding that remark.
Michael Hearne
--
RLU #352695
35.14N - 101.50W
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 08:59:43 AM |
|
|
Fooj wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/confederate_constitution.html
March 11,1861
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 12:15:44 AM |
|
|
On 25 Jan 2006 06:47:50 -0800, "Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1138200470.260639.244040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Another argument from ignorance.
Extreme ignorance, it seems.
"If you cannot create a new species under the microscope, that means
that God must exist."
Do you know how ludicrous that sounds to us real scientists?
Or ordinary people with more than 2 uninfected brain cells?
Oh, and a lie as well.
Surprise, surprise!
"...opinion from a God-hater..."
I cannot be a god-hater.
I cannot hate something that does not exist.
You just haven't got a clue, have you?
But I do have a great dislike of, even hate, ignorant and fraudulent
con-jobs, such as Special Creation, aka Intelligent Design, and it's
robotic mendacious cheerleading liars, such as you.
I note that you also are a coward, hiding behind an assumed label.
What are you scared of?
Your scientific illiteracy seems only to be matched by your English
illiteracy:
"Go back of where you came."!!!
It's at times like this that I seek actively deliverance from cretins
such as yourself.
And to think that your "intellectual equal", (such an achievement as
that may be), has his hand on the button that could erase life as we
know it.
Scary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 08:56:51 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray typed:
Do you know how ludicrous that sounds to us real scientists?
Or ordinary people with more than 2 uninfected brain cells?
I have a hard time believing you are a real scientist.
I cannot be a god-hater.
I cannot hate something that does not exist.
You just haven't got a clue, have you?
You haven't figured out the entropy of your own arguments yet. That's
clueless.
But I do have a great dislike of, even hate, ignorant and fraudulent
con-jobs, such as Special Creation, aka Intelligent Design, and it's
robotic mendacious cheerleading liars, such as you.
I note that you also are a coward, hiding behind an assumed label.
What are you scared of?
I don't advocate unIntelligent Design. Maybe you do.
Your scientific illiteracy seems only to be matched by your English
illiteracy:
"Go back of where you came."!!!
You can't be serious. Go back whence you came then. It means the same
thing.
And to think that your "intellectual equal", (such an achievement as
that may be), has his hand on the button that could erase life as we
know it.
Are you saying you guard the button to an MX missile? What an
achievement!! A non-working "weapon" of war!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 08:55:22 AM |
|
|
On 25 Jan 2006 06:47:50 -0800, "Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Yet another lying theist who is too stupid to understand that we'd
have to believe in it to hate it. You guys are so fucking stupid
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 12:17:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:55:22 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <q74ft1p78gj3qofta3djln90qmcoka22l4@4ax.com>
On 25 Jan 2006 06:47:50 -0800, "Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Yet another lying theist who is too stupid to understand that we'd
have to believe in it to hate it. You guys are so fucking stupid
This anonymous cowardly cretin is especially so, it seems.
Astoundingly thick.
She probably voted for Bush, as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 09:00:59 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:55:22 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <q74ft1p78gj3qofta3djln90qmcoka22l4@4ax.com>
On 25 Jan 2006 06:47:50 -0800, "Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Wrong on both counts.
Take this fraudulent swill back to church, where liars are rewarded,
whoever you are.
Oh yes, another worthless opinion from a God-hater. It is easy to test
the existance of entropy, and atrophy; but it is another thing to prove
the creation of another species under the microscope. Go back of where
you came.
Yet another lying theist who is too stupid to understand that we'd
have to believe in it to hate it. You guys are so fucking stupid
This anonymous cowardly cretin is especially so, it seems.
Astoundingly thick.
She probably voted for Bush, as well.
I did not vote for the shrub who happens to share in atheism as well.
The best way to make a man an atheist is to give them what they want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 04:02:07 PM |
|
|
"Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138287659.453336.17680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I did not vote for the shrub who happens to share in atheism as well.
The best way to make a man an atheist is to give them what they want.
======================
And the opposite is true? Giving a man nothing makes him holy?
--
CR.......
http://silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fooj" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 04:59:21 PM |
|
|
Cracklin' wrote:
"Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138287659.453336.17680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I did not vote for the shrub who happens to share in atheism as well.
The best way to make a man an atheist is to give them what they want.
======================
And the opposite is true? Giving a man nothing makes him holy?
--
CR.......
It makes man honorable not certainly not wholly. What kind of word is
(w)holy anyway? Is it a whole-out that makes a hole?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 03:59:38 PM |
|
|
Precision,... dat u?
Path:
news.shared-secrets.com!dartmaster!s03-b02.iad01!63.218.45.61.MISMATCH!s02-b02.iad01!63.218.45.10.MISMATCH!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!usenet01.sei.cmu.edu!nn.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeeder.srv.cs.cmu.edu!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
From: Anonymous <BigappleRemailer@bigapple.yi.org>
Date: 25 Jan 2006 00:12:41 -0000
Message-ID: <SFVMP5R038741.800474537@anonymous>
Subject: Darwin thoughts on Geology
CC:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.anthropology,alt.talk.creationism
X-No-Archive: No
witn,rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.
It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.
Send complaints of REAL abuse ONLY to remaileradmin at optonline dot
n
NOTE: Trolling and flame wars are not considered real abuse.
Mail-To-News-Contact:
Organization:
Lines: 18
Xref: news.shared-secrets.com alt.atheism:2271762 sci.anthropology:46596
alt.talk.creationism:238047
"Anonymous" <BigappleRemailer@bigapple.yi.org> wrote in message
news:SFVMP5R038741.800474537@anonymous...
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was "wrong" with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: "Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
