Jabriol, a he, by the way, is known to be a sociopathic JW who posts
lies from the JW cult. He was responsible for the suicide of a
disturbed person on another newsgroup and is generally a slimey excuse
for a human being.
Given this it is no surprise that he gets the sort of treatment he
gets.

Me being a man of God have always
considered atheists very well informed and educated however after
reading these attacks and others such attacks against the same
individual has me wondering the power of the individual "Jabbers" has in
these news groups. The constant attacks including the supplication to
not reply to this Jabriol has convince me of this. I hope this is just a
minority of individuals resorting to this tool of ad hominen.

disturbed person on another newsgroup and is generally a slimey excuse
for a human being

On 23 Jan, 11:50, Mikail Steiner <templegro...@vicars.net> wrote:

Killiam wrote:

Hey Jabbers, your wife still giving blow jobs behind the Kingdom Hall
for $3?

She down to $2 last I heard.

Is this is how a debate on evolution and creation is discussed?
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant
personal premises about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully
distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.
Therefore it seems that this Jabriol may have valid points and her
opponents wants to distract, due to lack of any sort of intelligent
reply. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby
subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject and
bust the thread.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem
abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or
personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit
that argument. It is usually performed by individual whose education is
limited or intellectually challenged. Me being a man of God have always
considered atheists very well informed and educated however after
reading these attacks and others such attacks against the same
individual has me wondering the power of the individual "Jabbers" has in
these news groups. The constant attacks including the supplication to
not reply to this Jabriol has convince me of this. I hope this is just a
minority of individuals resorting to this tool of ad hominen.

Mikail Steiner PHP
Church of God Awaiting Princeton NJ

Jabriol, a he, by the way, is known to be a sociopathic JW who posts
lies from the JW cult. He was responsible for the suicide of a
disturbed person on another newsgroup and is generally a slimey excuse
for a human being.
Given this it is no surprise that he gets the sort of treatment he
gets.

Wombat

mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-FA45E4.13044821012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:

Really? Do you have any evidence at all that supports the creation
story in Genesis? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your *****?

really sucks for you that some churches teach accordance with darwins
theory

Name a few.

mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-FA45E4.13044821012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:

Really? Do you have any evidence at all that supports the creation
story in Genesis? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your *****?

really sucks for you that some churches teach accordance with darwins
theory

Name a few.

On Jan 20, 6:04 pm, John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof
theworld.net"> wrote:

"EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun," asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many
scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things
may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process "descent with
subsequent modification." Such changes have been observed directly,
recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal
breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists
attach to such slight changes the term "microevolution."

Actually, no, they don't. They just call it what it is: evolution,
plain and simple.

"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are terms made up not by
scientists, but by fundy creationists who got backed into a corner by
reality and were forced to admit that yes, genetic characteristics
change in populations over time.

On Jan 20, 7:04 pm, John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof
theworld.net"> wrote:

"EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun," asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?

If you've figured out a way to *directly* observe the heat of the sun,
you have my admiration -- and really bad burns. All attempts to
determine the heat of the sun depend on inference from observations
made here on Earth -- like so much else in science, including
evolution, instances of indirect observation.

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many
scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things
may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process "descent with
subsequent modification." Such changes have been observed directly,
recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal
breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists
attach to such slight changes the term "microevolution." Even the name
implies what many scientists assert--that these minute changes furnish
the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has
observed, which they call macroevolution.

Science does not deal in "proof," but in best inferences from a
variety of different observations. And the evidence for common
descent -- "macroevolution" -- is based on a number of facts: the
nested hierarchy of homologies in living things, the biogeographical
distribution of species, faunal succession in the fossil record, the
existence of actual transitional fossils, etc. The fact that there
are demonstrated mechanisms -- heredity, mutation, natural selection,
etc. -- to accomplish branching descent with modification is merely
one -- albeit an important one -- of lines of evidence supporting
common descent.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his
famous book The Origin of Species: "I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings." Darwin
said that over vast periods of time, these original "few beings," or
so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved--by means of "extremely
slight modifications"--into the millions of different forms of life on
earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and
produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes
into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution.
To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, 'If small
changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big
changes over long periods of time?'

Observed changes are not just within species, of course: there are
known instances, in historical times, of the evolution of new
species. For evolution to be unable to accomplish large changes over
time, there would have to be some barriers around "created kinds" that
could not be transgressed by any plausible series of mutations and
selection events. No such barriers are known, and the evidence that
common descent actually has happened suggests that such barriers do
not exist.

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

Strictly speaking, you are confusing "macroevolution" ("common
descent" would be better) with the mechanisms of evolutionary change.
Darwin concluded that common descent had happened before he worked out
his theory of natural selection, and he never quite came up with the
idea of mutations -- all he knew was that there had to be some source
of new variation in populations. Mutations is the source we know of;
it may not be the only one.

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

Again, this is not quite correct. Indeed, since Darwin first proposed
the idea that natural selection could be the mechanism of adaption,
evolutionists have been noting that adaption is not the same thing as
speciation, and the role of natural selection in actual speciation is
still controversial.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.

Again, Darwin's original argument depended very little on fossils
(except to note that extinct species are often found near living
species that are similar to them, like giant armadillos near modern
armadillos in South America). Common descent is inferred mainly on
the basis of the patterns of similarities and differences among living
species, although in the century and a half since Darwin, the fossil
record has provided many confirmations of evolution (some of the most
striking involve our own species).

Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be
considered a fact?

Yes. Thank you for asking.

-- Steven J.