"JabriolBlue" <BlueStar@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:Od%Fg.3650$hP6.1373@trnddc04...

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that
Darwinism is under attack.

Concern, yes. But not because these "alternatives" provide anything near the
explanation that TOE does. Concern because Christians could turn the US into
an intellectual backwater similar to what they did to Rome nearly two
millenia ago.

The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has
virtually become a religion itself

Pure assertion with NO basis.

and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas.

Pure assertion with NO basis.

The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and
religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral
reason.
The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The
doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather
than a siege from without"

Pure assertion with NO basis.

Even Behe, who is not much of a scientist, admits that evolution has
occurred. What other attacks from within science are there?

We Jehovahs Witnesses expect you to call them RIGHT NOW............

FBI Memphis
Suite 3000, Eagle Crest Bldg.
225 North Humphreys Blvd.
Memphis, Tennessee 38120-2107
memphis.fbi.gov
(901) 747-4300

Murfreesboro Police-Detectives
302 S Church St,
Murfreesboro, 37130
(615) 893-2717

Does JabriolBlue lie?

Jabriol Lies Series #1
http://tinyurl.com/2w7u9

Jabriol Lies Series #2
http://tinyurl.com/2l9rl

Jabriol Lies Series #3
http://tinyurl.com/27cvs

Jabriol Lies Series #4
http://tinyurl.com/33zrt

Jabriol Lies Series #5
http://tinyurl.com/2t944

Jabriol Lies Series #6
http://tinyurl.com/3776p

Jabriol Lies Series #7
http://tinyurl.com/82da6

Jabriol Misleading Quotes series #1
http://tinyurl.com/b3n6s

JabriolBlue <BlueStar@mailinator.com> wrote in news:Od%Fg.3650$hP6.1373
@trnddc04:

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that
Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and,
in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are
certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious
fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The
main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The
doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather
than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook
of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

These were cunning lies when first written. Now they are just dumb lies.

In either case YOU have violated God's direct commandment to forbear from
false witness.

Time to duck and run, Jabriol, since I'm still asking you the same
questions I've been asking for two years - questions you run from every
single time without giving an intelligent or honest-to-god
straight-forward answer:

Time to duck and run, Jabriol, since I'm still asking you the same
questions I've been asking for two years - questions you run from every
single time without giving an intelligent or honest-to-god
straight-forward answer:

And there are you misleading "quotes", of course:)
Jabriol Misleading Quotes series #1
http://tinyurl.com/b3n6s

Brief summary of all the unanswered qiestions follows:
1. A car is organic (molecular structure based in carbon).
True or false?

2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?

3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure.
True/false?

4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?

5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?

6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the desert
leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we are in
trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?

7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning
into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each
different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its
kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into
being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)

That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?

8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it was
or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?

9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, and biologically related
to the giraffe is pretty much what a transitional giraffe could have
looked like.
True or false?

10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq s/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?

11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?

12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?

13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?

14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?

15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?

16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles.
True or false?

17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?

18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?

19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?

20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?

21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in these
news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal holes in
the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?

22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence from
others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?

23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?

24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a ***** they are.
True or false?

The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.

25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%

Please *support* your answer to question 25 with at least one
competent and intelligent reference that does not refer to a
non-existent article in _New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation,
and is not merely a headline from an article that has nothing otherwise
to do with the topic.


Still waiting on you answering these:

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #1
http://tinyurl.com/c75ql

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #2
http://tinyurl.com/cla6m

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #3
http://tinyurl.com/d5ku3

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #4
http://tinyurl.com/btmpg

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #5
http://tinyurl.com/7hkz9

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #6
http://tinyurl.com/9c8hp

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #7
http://tinyurl.com/cqanx

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #8
http://tinyurl.com/bqydk

Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #9
http://tinyurl.com/dkmd3

And how about apologising for these lies instead of running from them?
Jabriol Lies Series #1
http://tinyurl.com/2w7u9

Jabriol Lies Series #2
http://tinyurl.com/2l9rl

Jabriol Lies Series #3
http://tinyurl.com/27cvs

Jabriol Lies Series #4
http://tinyurl.com/33zrt

Jabriol Lies Series #5
http://tinyurl.com/2t944

Jabriol Lies Series #6
http://tinyurl.com/3776p

Jabriol Lies Series #7
http://tinyurl.com/82da6

Budikka