| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2005 08:51:53 AM |
| Object: |
Life After Darwin |
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/morgan5.html
My Life After Darwin
by John R Morgan, MD
Like most people, I never really bought the idea that life just
spontaneously developed out of nowhere, and then humans came from fish
or whatever.
It just didn't make sense.
A man named William Dembski with a PhD in mathematics from the
University of Chicago and a PhD in philosophy from the University of
Illinois has developed one good explanation why I always felt this way.
Let's say that you go to see the carving of Confederate heroes on
Stone Mountain right outside of Atlanta. Even though you didn't
actually see anyone perform the carving, you can infer that a designer
made the images. Now if you go to the back of the mountain and see
various amorphous shapes (although they are statistically as improbable
as the carving), you assume that they were randomly formed by erosion.
I know what you are thinking. This is basic common sense.
Unfortunately, however, we live in a time where common sense must be
justified; hence, Dembski is creating mathematical models to test the
validity of inferring design from something that is improbable and
specific. He hopes to prove that life falls into the category of
intelligent design.
I laud his efforts but in a way it is a sad commentary on our society.
Another man, Berkley law professor Phillip Johnson, has criticized the
intellectual leaps of faith necessary to accept evolution as a
life-creating force (leaps that I was never convinced to take). Johnson
argues that Darwinism has ceased to be a scientific theory and is now a
tautology that conveniently explains everything in nature. Although
Darwin himself operated within the context of the scientific method by
giving examples of empirical observations that would refute his
hypothesis, modern-day evolutionists entertain no such claims. Their
position is derived from a presupposed metaphysical belief that God
cannot exist.
As Johnson points out, in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species
(actually entitled The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection;
or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), the
fossil record was relatively incomplete. Darwin predicted that further
examination of fossils would demonstrate slow gradual change in living
organisms. Paleontologists have since found the abrupt appearance of
new organisms followed by long periods of static existence before
abrupt distinction.
The pattern of life as portrayed by the fossil record prompted Nobel
Prize-winning scientist, Francis Crick (he co-discovered DNA), to
suggest that space aliens must have visited earth at different times
bringing new species. Even the guy who discovered DNA has doubts about
evolution!
(Crick is actually an interesting fellow. He signed the "Resolution in
Scientific Freedom" with 49 other scientists noting that left-wing
institutions are censuring and punishing some scientists for
politically incorrect research.)
In Darwin's time it was also believed that cells were made of simple
vitalistic goo that contained life. Molecular biology has since
revealed that even the most primitive organisms contain amazingly
complex, interdependent parts. Micheal Behe, a professor of biological
sciences at Lehigh University, has adduced the concept of irreducible
complexity that challenges the logic of natural selection driving the
creation of complicated mechanisms with multiple independent parts.
(How can a sophisticated structure like a wing develop piecemeal if its
only functions in its completed form?)
My personal intellectual journey with Darwinism began at the University
of Georgia as an undergraduate. I majored in microbiology (graduating
1st in my class of roughly 5,000 students in 1991) and did non-human
genetic cloning research. I was overwhelmed with the diversity of life
and the power of genetics. In fact, I came to understand that genes
really matter. At the same time, I didn't buy the weak little theory
of survival of the fittest creating life.
I saw intraspecies change like bacterial anti-biotic resistance
(microevolution) but I needed missing-link evidence (macroevolution).
No one could give it to me.
I sincerely resented my professors conflating my skepticism in
Darwinism with irrational anti-intellectualism. I loved science and
truly respected the power of DNA. I just didn't think they had proven
how life was created.
I began reading everything I could get my hands on about evolution. I
put aside my biology textbooks that presented evolution as a
universally accepted law and started devouring the primary writings of
the modern-day evolution experts. It was at this point that I realized
that millions of students were being taught bad science for religious
and political reasons.
I also learned that a potentially internecine civil war was raging
within the Darwinian Nation.
On one side were the strict constructionists led by Richard Dawkins of
Oxford University in England. Dawkins was more like a religious zealot
than a political ideologue. He had long since accepted the fundamental
primacy of survival of the fittest, and was applying its logical
corollaries to human behavior.
On the other side were left wing ideologues led primarily by the
brilliant but ruthless Stephen Jay Gould. Gould, a self proclaimed
Marxist, loved the metaphysical liberation and culturally transforming
power of Darwinism. He despised, however, "the universal acid of
natural selection ... reducing human cultural change to the Darwinian
algorithm."
Basically, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Remember, leftists like Gould require a worldview where human behavior
is 100% culturally conditioned; and here was Dawkins stating that
culture itself was an extension of human genes. (At this point I should
note that Dawkins is not a right winger, and received the Humanist of
the Year Award in 1996)
Gould viciously attacked the "ultra-Darwinists."
In a perfidious stab in the back to those committed to keeping "the
divine foot out of the door" (to borrow from another left-wing
ideologue, Richard C. Lewontin) Gould proclaimed, "Darwin is dead!" He
went on to attack the inadequacy of natural selection to explain the
complexity of life. He also cogently argued that the fossil evidence
did not support slow gradual change.
He proposed a new theory of (macro)evolution that he called punctuated
equilibrium. Basically, he suggested that (macro)evolution must have
occurred in quick spurts not captured by the fossil record. In
addition, he attempted to down play the importance of survival of the
fittest. Using his talented literary skills, he painted the world of
biological change as a non-threatening nebulous impression. He
fashioned himself an "evolutionary pluralist."
Now what was a confused young student to do?
I knew Darwin had stated that any reliance on macro mutations (or
saltations as he called them) would cause him to reject his theory of
evolution because it is not plausible; and here was Gould asking me to
accept (macro)evolution based on some unknown rapid genetic change,
basically a macro mutation. (Phillip Johnson has argued that punctuated
equilibrium is a euphemism for miracle)
I also didn't trust Gould. His primary concern seemed to be
maintaining the leftist moral code of life rather than the scientific
understanding of life.
I also couldn't buy Dawkin's historical narrative of life. The
power of Darwinism rested in its claim to a plausible mechanism (which
Gould destroyed) and its claim to a process without intentionallity.
Dawkins was writing about "selfish genes." How could the substrate of
evolution (DNA) be selfish and at the same time be without intention?
In addition, I was learning about other mechanisms of genetic
inheritance called genomic imprinting. Without going into detail, the
evolutionists were touting this phenomenon as a genetic "battle of the
sexes." Again, they were asking me to accept Darwinism because DNA
changed without purpose while simultaneously rejoicing that female DNA
held a grudge against male DNA (I hope to fully describe the
inconsistencies in logic of genomic imprinting and natural selection in
another setting).
Basically, I came to realize that Dawkins and Gould were not the
sophisticated atheists they wanted to be. They actually had faith in a
god - the DNA molecule. They seemed to believe that it was
omnipotent. To Dawkins it was a selfish god. To Gould it was an
egalitarian god.
Personally, I decided to pass on worshipping the double helix. No, sir,
I decided to keep the Christian faith of my ancestors.
But maybe it wasn't actually free will that brought me to my
decision. Maybe it was determined by the genes God gave me.
John R. Morgan, MD, is a practicing physician in Atlanta.
.
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 08:07:50 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
The problem is you have no evidence for evolution so you co-opt
genetics and call *that* evolution.
Congratulations - you've written the most moronic statement I've read all
weekend. Your village must be proud.
Is being a smart-***** with no answers a lot more fulfilling to you then
ever having a more scientific answer than "I believe in evolution by
faith".
Do you *even* realize that people who breed animals rely on the laws of
genetics?
And that these scientific laws clearly say that genetics has limits?
Evolutionists (who are all (apparently) as dense as you are) can't get
this basic fact of genetics through their thick skulls. Genetics goes
so far and no further. Evolutionists (like you) seem to think that
they can make genetics go anywhere they want it to go or do anything
they want it to do.
That is not scientific.
What we (the skeptics) want is evidence for "evolution". If the
evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?
The I'll try to explain it r e a l l y s l o w l y for you...
Evolution is defined by biologists as a change in gene frequency over time.
That's what it is - not what you or some other dimwitted layperson says it
is.
Horseshit -- That may be one of the definitions by evolutionists at one
time or another, but evolution has a never-ending and ever-changing
list of definitions. (I suggest you study it a little bit before you
pretend to lecture to me on it).
If you wish to disprove evolution all you have to do is prove that gene
frequencies don't change. Failing that - and you WILL fail as we know gene
frequencies change - you might have a go at the DNA-->RNA-->Protein bit but
you stand no chance there either as we know that to be true too.
Once again -- do you have a clue what genetics is? Not what you want
it to be -- what it actually is?
Look, we all know you don't have fossil evidence and genetics has
limits that eliminates it as a method for evolution -- so I'll go easy
on you.
Oh, you'll go easy on me, that's rich.
I spent many hours studying fossil and living creatures in vertebrate
zoology and there seems to be no shortage of slack-jawed laypeople ready to
tell me they didn't exist. Read a fucking book for christs sake. All you
are is being willfully ignorant, that doesn't make you cool and it damn-sure
doesn't make you a skeptic.
Cut the crap -- present the evidence. Give me names of these
"supposed" intermediates.
Put up or shut up. (Not that I hold much hope that you'll do either
one. It's not in an evolutionists nature to shut up when they don't
know what they're talking about. And there's no way in hell they can
produce non-existent evidence.)
Describe a line of evolving creatures that evolve from a small land
mammal into a whale.
That's well documented and you know it is.
You really are giving me the giggles now. ("It's well documented --
yeah, that's the ticket -- so well documented I seem to have misplaced
it".)
You really are full of crap, aren't you? (Typical evolutionist.)
I don't expect you to provide evidence (you don't have any), just tell
me how it *could* happen.
Can you do that?
(Remember -- each and every change has to beneficial to our developing
whale.)
Oh I get it, if the results of a change aren't immediately obviously
beneficial to *you* (the slack-jawed layperson) then they mustn't be truly
beneficial at all.
Idiot
You have *no* results, idiot. You're a blowhard -- nothing more.
(Typical evolutionist).
Tired of being a blowhard? Then lay it out for me. Describe to me all
of these imaginary creatures you *know* existed in the grand march from
a small land mammal to a whale. And tell me how each successive
creature was better adapted than the last.
If you can't do that -- then you're full of crap.
(By the way, you may have a hell an ego and you may love using the word
"idiot" a lot, but you are clearly full of crap.)
Or do you have something that will shut me up? Anything? Anything at
all? Yeah -- I knew you didn't, blowhard.
Evolution and evolutionists are absolute, total frauds. All they (and
you) can do is make snide remarks and run and hide from *EVER*
providing one ounce of evidence for your faith that you call "science".
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
"Where's the beef?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 08:24:33 PM |
|
|
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131934070.574266.196340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Horseshit -- That may be one of the definitions by evolutionists at one
time or another, but evolution has a never-ending and ever-changing
list of definitions. (I suggest you study it a little bit before you
pretend to lecture to me on it).
Not in the primary literature and textbooks it doesn't.
You just make it up as you go don't you?
If you wish to disprove evolution all you have to do is prove that gene
frequencies don't change. Failing that - and you WILL fail as we know
gene
frequencies change - you might have a go at the DNA-->RNA-->Protein bit
but
you stand no chance there either as we know that to be true too.
Once again -- do you have a clue what genetics is? Not what you want
it to be -- what it actually is?
Not a fucking clue.
Idiot
Look, we all know you don't have fossil evidence and genetics has
limits that eliminates it as a method for evolution -- so I'll go easy
on you.
Oh, you'll go easy on me, that's rich.
I spent many hours studying fossil and living creatures in vertebrate
zoology and there seems to be no shortage of slack-jawed laypeople ready
to
tell me they didn't exist. Read a fucking book for christs sake. All
you
are is being willfully ignorant, that doesn't make you cool and it
damn-sure
doesn't make you a skeptic.
Cut the crap -- present the evidence. Give me names of these
"supposed" intermediates.
Put up or shut up. (Not that I hold much hope that you'll do either
one. It's not in an evolutionists nature to shut up when they don't
know what they're talking about. And there's no way in hell they can
produce non-existent evidence.)
There's the rhipidistian crossopterygian Eusthenopteron for starters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 08:17:58 PM |
|
|
On 13 Nov 2005 18:07:50 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tim K. wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
The problem is you have no evidence for evolution so you co-opt
genetics and call *that* evolution.
Congratulations - you've written the most moronic statement I've read all
weekend. Your village must be proud.
Is being a smart-***** with no answers a lot more fulfilling to you then
ever having a more scientific answer than "I believe in evolution by
faith".
Nobody does that, liar.
The scientific explanations are accepted becaus ethey work powerfully,
predictably and predictively.
Do you *even* realize that people who breed animals rely on the laws of
genetics?
And that these scientific laws clearly say that genetics has limits?
So give them, moron.
Evolutionists (who are all (apparently) as dense as you are) can't get
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist", liar. That is a dishonest
attempt by creationists to pretend that anybody with a grasp of
reality, is practisng an -ism.
this basic fact of genetics through their thick skulls. Genetics goes
so far and no further. Evolutionists (like you) seem to think that
they can make genetics go anywhere they want it to go or do anything
they want it to do.
Liar.
That is not scientific.
It's your dishonest strawman.
What we (the skeptics) want is evidence for "evolution". If the
evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?
The I'll try to explain it r e a l l y s l o w l y for you...
Evolution is defined by biologists as a change in gene frequency over time.
That's what it is - not what you or some other dimwitted layperson says it
is.
Horseshit -- That may be one of the definitions by evolutionists at one
time or another, but evolution has a never-ending and ever-changing
list of definitions. (I suggest you study it a little bit before you
pretend to lecture to me on it).
Liar.
If you wish to disprove evolution all you have to do is prove that gene
frequencies don't change. Failing that - and you WILL fail as we know gene
frequencies change - you might have a go at the DNA-->RNA-->Protein bit but
you stand no chance there either as we know that to be true too.
Once again -- do you have a clue what genetics is? Not what you want
it to be -- what it actually is?
Liar.
Look, we all know you don't have fossil evidence and genetics has
limits that eliminates it as a method for evolution -- so I'll go easy
on you.
Oh, you'll go easy on me, that's rich.
I spent many hours studying fossil and living creatures in vertebrate
zoology and there seems to be no shortage of slack-jawed laypeople ready to
tell me they didn't exist. Read a fucking book for christs sake. All you
are is being willfully ignorant, that doesn't make you cool and it damn-sure
doesn't make you a skeptic.
Cut the crap -- present the evidence. Give me names of these
"supposed" intermediates.
Liar.
Put up or shut up. (Not that I hold much hope that you'll do either
one. It's not in an evolutionists nature to shut up when they don't
know what they're talking about. And there's no way in hell they can
produce non-existent evidence.)
Liar.
Describe a line of evolving creatures that evolve from a small land
mammal into a whale.
That's well documented and you know it is.
You really are giving me the giggles now. ("It's well documented --
yeah, that's the ticket -- so well documented I seem to have misplaced
it".)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
Liar.
You really are full of crap, aren't you? (Typical evolutionist.)
You meant to say that you are a typical lying creationist.
I don't expect you to provide evidence (you don't have any), just tell
me how it *could* happen.
Can you do that?
(Remember -- each and every change has to beneficial to our developing
whale.)
Oh I get it, if the results of a change aren't immediately obviously
beneficial to *you* (the slack-jawed layperson) then they mustn't be truly
beneficial at all.
Idiot
You have *no* results, idiot. You're a blowhard -- nothing more.
(Typical evolutionist).
Liar.
Tired of being a blowhard? Then lay it out for me. Describe to me all
of these imaginary creatures you *know* existed in the grand march from
a small land mammal to a whale. And tell me how each successive
creature was better adapted than the last.
Liar.
If you can't do that -- then you're full of crap.
Liar.
(By the way, you may have a hell an ego and you may love using the word
"idiot" a lot, but you are clearly full of crap.)
Liar.
Or do you have something that will shut me up? Anything? Anything at
all? Yeah -- I knew you didn't, blowhard.
Liar.
Evolution and evolutionists are absolute, total frauds. All they (and
you) can do is make snide remarks and run and hide from *EVER*
providing one ounce of evidence for your faith that you call "science".
Liar.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
"Where's the beef?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 07:36:50 PM |
|
|
On 13 Nov 2005 16:46:55 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tim K. wrote:
"League" <Nobody@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6vdf.76$U62.6098@news.uswest.net...
What there is no evidence for is evolution ever happening.
Evolution: change in gene frequency over time.
Genes change - evolution happens.
What is so flipping hard for you morons to understand about that?
The problem is you have no evidence for evolution so you co-opt
genetics and call *that* evolution.
Pretends the lying creationist.
The word "evolution" was coined as the label for the observed change
and divergence in the fossil record long before Darwin.
But fossils aren't even needed to confirm it. Cladistic trees drawn up
from protein chemistry, genetics and comparable morphology of present
day species all branch at the same places.
Is there such a thing as an honest creationist? You're typical of all
of them I have met on and off the net: in-your face dishonest liars
who take everybody else for idiots.
What we (the skeptics) want is evidence for "evolution". If the
evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?
I suggest you read a book like Science And Earth History by Strahler.
Or go to the nearest Natural History Museum where what you pretend
doesn't exist, is on display in a way that even brainwashed morons
like yourself can understand it.
Failing that, read the FAQs at www.talkorigins.org which are an
attempt to educate people like you
Look, we all know you don't have fossil evidence and genetics has
limits that eliminates it as a method for evolution -- so I'll go easy
on you.
Why are so many creationists such out and out liars?
Describe a line of evolving creatures that evolve from a small land
mammal into a whale.
Look up "pakicetus", "ambulocetus", "basilosaurus", etc. WHICH WERE
PREDICTED FROM THE PELVIS AND VESTIGIAL INSIDE-THE-BODY REAR LIMBS.
I don't expect you to provide evidence (you don't have any), just tell
me how it *could* happen.
Liar.
Can you do that?
Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt.
(Remember -- each and every change has to beneficial to our developing
whale.)
Why?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
14 Nov 2005 05:54:05 PM |
|
|
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Tim K. wrote:
"League" <Nobody@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6vdf.76$U62.6098@news.uswest.net...
What there is no evidence for is evolution ever happening.
Evolution: change in gene frequency over time.
Genes change - evolution happens.
What is so flipping hard for you morons to understand about that?
The problem is you have no evidence for evolution so you co-opt
genetics and call *that* evolution.
Genetic is a science. Evolutionary science consists of palentology,
genetics, geology, anthropology, genetics, behavioral sciences,
paleobotony, comparative anatomy, etc.
Of the many lines of evidence, genetics provides the strongest evidence
for evolution.
What we (the skeptics) want is evidence for "evolution". If the
evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?
Because it's rude and illegal to pry people's eyelids open by force.
Look, we all know you don't have fossil evidence and genetics has
limits
What limits, pray tell?
Who asserts this, and where is his/her evidence?
You have a link, or just an assertion which all geneticists deny?
that eliminates it as a method for evolution -- so I'll go easy
on you.
Not that you have any choice.
Describe a line of evolving creatures that evolve from a small land
mammal into a whale.
OK. A cow-like species
A cow-like species that learns to like water plants because the
environment is changing.
A hippo-like species.
An elephant seal-like species.
A whale with legs barely big enough to crawl with on land.
A whale with legs no longer used for walking, strongly selected for
streamlined swimming.
Modern whales.
Is that too difficult to imagine?
Gosh. I wonder of anything like that could have happened.
Well, there *are fossil species such as:
Pakicetus inachus
Sinonyx jiashanensis
Ambulocetus natans
Rodhocetus kasrani
Dorudon atrox
And of course, basilosaurus
I don't expect you to provide evidence (you don't have any), just tell
me how it *could* happen.
If you want more details, try here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Can you do that?
(Remember -- each and every change has to beneficial to our developing
whale.)
(Remember - circumstances change, and and the improvement only has to
be better for that species, in those conditions.)
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 05:49:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:43:52 -0700, "League" <Nobody@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
Since no evidence about creation exists, it isn't a scientific issue.
Oh theres plenty of evidence from mimicry to thermodynamics.
Does "plenty" mean zero on your planet?
There is no way to determine creation or design at the
designer/creator-of-everything level.
Because there is nothing that wasn't designed/created at that level,
ie nothing natural.
You would have to know enough about this designer/creator to know that
it designed/created everything. Which is what you're supposed to be
deriving, not presuming.
What there is no evidence for is evolution ever happening.
Anybody who says this is either a liar or an idiot. Which are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 06:33:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:49:43 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:43:52 -0700, "League" <Nobody@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
Since no evidence about creation exists, it isn't a scientific issue.
Oh theres plenty of evidence from mimicry to thermodynamics.
Does "plenty" mean zero on your planet?
There is no way to determine creation or design at the
designer/creator-of-everything level.
Because there is nothing that wasn't designed/created at that level,
ie nothing natural.
You would have to know enough about this designer/creator to know that
it designed/created everything. Which is what you're supposed to be
deriving, not presuming.
What there is no evidence for is evolution ever happening.
Anybody who says this is either a liar or an idiot. Which are you?
As far as I'm aware, there's nothing that precludes his being both.
<G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 09:04:00 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:13:57 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<a_ddf.97$Bm3.1783@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sjqan155v032o1i3tckk2tvhnnkng8av69@4ax.com...
....
Well, if you have your own version of what science is, I can see how it
would be difficult for you to persuade others.
....
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved". The fossil record does not show
that and having similar DNA (96%) to that of a chimp, does
not prove a thing, especially when our supposed evolution
was not from chimps and that 4% speaks to thousands
upon thousands of differences. And when chimps build
skyscrapers, then they can tell me about chimps and man.
A common designer speaks to the issue just fine.
Never mind. If you want to ignore evidence, refuse to learn how science
works, and make sweeping generalizations, go ahead, but ID is an
abandonment of the quest for knowledge, nothing else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 11:03:07 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qt0cn1ddggp68qr8qhi90qeeqsmn72c58h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:13:57 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<a_ddf.97$Bm3.1783@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sjqan155v032o1i3tckk2tvhnnkng8av69@4ax.com...
...
Well, if you have your own version of what science is, I can see how it
would be difficult for you to persuade others.
...
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved". The fossil record does not show
that and having similar DNA (96%) to that of a chimp, does
not prove a thing, especially when our supposed evolution
was not from chimps and that 4% speaks to thousands
upon thousands of differences. And when chimps build
skyscrapers, then they can tell me about chimps and man.
A common designer speaks to the issue just fine.
Never mind. If you want to ignore evidence, refuse to learn how science
works, and make sweeping generalizations, go ahead, but ID is an
abandonment of the quest for knowledge, nothing else.
Claims are not proof.
You make blanket stements about me ignoring the evidence but yet you don't
show me how I've done that?
You think your incessant snipping of my threads somehoe makes a case in your
favor.
You God-Haters are all connected to the same partyline.
And offer zero proof of macroevolution. And evolutionists make false
claims and uses outdated information.
For example, it claims "legged whales". There is no such
thing as vestigial legs in whales and anyone who tells you
that, is either lying, or is ignorant of their whale anatomy
and the question remains, for how long will you fools use
outdated information, that has been refuted time and time
again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 11:21:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:03:07 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<gfpdf.49$U62.2393@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qt0cn1ddggp68qr8qhi90qeeqsmn72c58h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:13:57 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<a_ddf.97$Bm3.1783@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sjqan155v032o1i3tckk2tvhnnkng8av69@4ax.com...
...
Well, if you have your own version of what science is, I can see how it
would be difficult for you to persuade others.
...
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved". The fossil record does not show
that and having similar DNA (96%) to that of a chimp, does
not prove a thing, especially when our supposed evolution
was not from chimps and that 4% speaks to thousands
upon thousands of differences. And when chimps build
skyscrapers, then they can tell me about chimps and man.
A common designer speaks to the issue just fine.
Never mind. If you want to ignore evidence, refuse to learn how science
works, and make sweeping generalizations, go ahead, but ID is an
abandonment of the quest for knowledge, nothing else.
Claims are not proof.
You make blanket stements about me ignoring the evidence but yet you don't
show me how I've done that?
You make assertions about ID that cannot be supported.
You think your incessant snipping of my threads somehoe makes a case in your
favor.
I snip the parts I am not responding to. My choice not to respond to
them does not in any way show agreement with the statements.
You God-Haters are all connected to the same partyline.
I don't think so, but I'm not sure I understand what you are claiming
here.
And offer zero proof of macroevolution. And evolutionists make false
claims and uses outdated information.
Such as?
For example, it claims "legged whales". There is no such
thing as vestigial legs in whales and anyone who tells you
that, is either lying, or is ignorant of their whale anatomy
and the question remains, for how long will you fools use
outdated information, that has been refuted time and time
again?
Ambulocetus natans <http://www.neoucom.edu/Tour/fatrium.htm>
Blue whale <http://www.memetic-glutton.org/oz/20020824-01.jpg>
Nope, don't see what you are saying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "League" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 05:48:08 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:th8cn1t2jebo9f9e1ib3o9223qqh52fn71@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:03:07 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<gfpdf.49$U62.2393@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qt0cn1ddggp68qr8qhi90qeeqsmn72c58h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:13:57 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<a_ddf.97$Bm3.1783@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sjqan155v032o1i3tckk2tvhnnkng8av69@4ax.com...
...
Well, if you have your own version of what science is, I can see how
it
would be difficult for you to persuade others.
...
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved". The fossil record does not show
that and having similar DNA (96%) to that of a chimp, does
not prove a thing, especially when our supposed evolution
was not from chimps and that 4% speaks to thousands
upon thousands of differences. And when chimps build
skyscrapers, then they can tell me about chimps and man.
A common designer speaks to the issue just fine.
Never mind. If you want to ignore evidence, refuse to learn how science
works, and make sweeping generalizations, go ahead, but ID is an
abandonment of the quest for knowledge, nothing else.
Claims are not proof.
You make blanket stements about me ignoring the evidence but yet you don't
show me how I've done that?
You make assertions about ID that cannot be supported.
You think your incessant snipping of my threads somehoe makes a case in
your
favor.
I snip the parts I am not responding to. My choice not to respond to
them does not in any way show agreement with the statements.
Tell you what you are a fool, and I don't waste my time with fools that
don't care to do anything but avoid a discussion through red-herrings and
circular logic peppered with being a smartass.
I am done with you.
You are a fool that cannot debate in an honest and open manner because you
have nothing to say.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 11:12:54 AM |
|
|
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qt0cn1ddggp68qr8qhi90qeeqsmn72c58h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:13:57 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<a_ddf.97$Bm3.1783@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sjqan155v032o1i3tckk2tvhnnkng8av69@4ax.com...
...
Well, if you have your own version of what science is, I can see how it
would be difficult for you to persuade others.
...
As I said, neither abiogenesis, nor macroevolution, nor
creation can be tested repeatably, which is what science
requires. What we can do, is to look at what the record
shows and while the evolutionists try to claim that their
belief is based on the evidence, the fact is, that there is
zero evidence that life happened on its own and zero
evidence that it "evolved". The fossil record does not show
that and having similar DNA (96%) to that of a chimp, does
not prove a thing, especially when our supposed evolution
was not from chimps and that 4% speaks to thousands
upon thousands of differences. And when chimps build
skyscrapers, then they can tell me about chimps and man.
A common designer speaks to the issue just fine.
Never mind. If you want to ignore evidence, refuse to learn how science
works, and make sweeping generalizations, go ahead, but ID is an
abandonment of the quest for knowledge, nothing else.
Claims are not proof.
You make blanket stements about me ignoring the evidence but yet you don't
show me how I've done that?
You think your incessant snipping of my threads somehoe makes a case in your
favor.
You God-Haters are all connected to the same partyline.
And offer zero proof of macroevolution. And evolutionists make false
claims and uses outdated information.
For example, it claims "legged whales". There is no such
thing as vestigial legs in whales and anyone who tells you
that, is either lying, or is ignorant of their whale anatomy
and the question remains, for how long will you fools use
outdated information, that has been refuted time and time
again?
Forever, apparently. The notorious "horse series" is still published
in the Encylopedia Brittanica.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "League" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 05:36:21 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sjqan155v032o1i3tckk2tvhnnkng8av69@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:24:46 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<3gddf.89$Bm3.1780@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:nrman1pp27ouesikg5e4li5gl6ap5m251l@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 18:03:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1131758093.549782.110660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131750738.825782.27070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:30:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131748214.415042.210490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote
How about you? Have you done the primary research yourself or
read the
writtings of others?
No, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I have read a number
of
articles and books. I have also read some of the books written
by
opponents of science. I find them lacking in substance and
evidence.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence,
On the contrary. The evidence is completely welcome. But the evidence
does not show what you would like it to show.
but, have no scientific alternative
available.
Your defiinition of "scientific" is synonymous with "wholly
materialistic." And no, there is no satisfactory wholly materialistic
explanation for life on earth.
TCross
Why not? What specifically is wrong with the theory of evolution as it
is understood today?
They're just repeating the mantra that they think makes them
sound super intelligent and is in reality, something they
know to be a lie and is designed to avoid having to deal
with the facts.
The truth is, they try to restrict science to only natural
conclusion and science is not limited to natural
conclusions.
Why not? Which scientists say that science can investigate the
supernatural?
Since your asking most parapschyolgy departments in many Universitys.,
They claim that they can show macroevolution
scientifically, but that's not true at all. That is their
philosophy, but it is not true.
Why not?
Because they've never shown evidence for macroevolution.
While science cannot prove
that the God of the Bible created the universe, intelligent
design is not automatically ruled out, simply because it
isn't, "natural".
I think it's ruled out because there is no evidence for it.
Why not?
The evolutionists try to claim that
science is limited to natural answers, but that is not what
science is and only fools and frauds claim that science
can only lead to natural answers.
Well, if you have your own version of what science is, I can see how it
would be difficult for you to persuade others.
My version of science is the version taught in science class.
Not evolutionary bs.
It's you evolutionists that hate the true sciences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 05:53:57 PM |
|
|
"League" <Nobody@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:V%udf.74$U62.6124@news.uswest.net...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
Why not? Which scientists say that science can investigate the
supernatural?
Since your asking most parapschyolgy departments in many Universitys.,
oooh, parapsychology - there's a robust science...
Lotsa hypothesis testing going on there.
Because they've never shown evidence for macroevolution.
Denial noted.
My version of science is the version taught in science class.
Not evolutionary bs.
It's you evolutionists that hate the true sciences.
Somewhere, there's a village looking for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 07:22:21 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
Thousands of generations of really pissed-off fruit flies can attest to
that.
Your assertion is entertaining.
I'm glad you think so. Do you understand why I said it? I'll assume
you didn't.
I did.
Sorry for assuming you didn't.
The fact is; excited evolutionists have mucked around with fruit flies
for years and years trying to prove evolution. Fruit flies have
extremely short life spans -- so the scientists had hoped they could
"cause" evolution. They would get excited for awhile when it looked
like they were making some headway, but the changes would never go
beyond a certain point.
When it comes to fruit flies, evolutionary faith has run into the brick
wall of the laws of genetic science. That's why genetics doesn't work
as a motor for evolution. Genetics says "changes have limits".
Exactly the opposite of what evolution needs.
Nice misunderstanding of it.
Maybe you didn't understand it after all.
And this is the classic evolutionist response. The inference that the
other part is just too dense to understand it -- that they just don't
get it. Be always a careful of just what it is that they "didn't
understand".
Fact: Evolutionists expected to change fruit flies indefinitely --
some even hoped to created new a new species. Reality: Fruit flies
could only change so far before they became sterile and died out. Left
alone they reverted to type. This is genetics in action.
Now, what exactly don't I understand?
Your comments don't appear to bear that out. The amount of evidence is
far greater than you seem to be aware of.
Right -- we're just not going to tell anybody about it. (It's our
little secret.)
Which college textbook would you like to start with?
Any one. Give me your best shot. WOW me.
Would a middle school text work for you?
Any evolutionary book of fiction will do. Primary school, middle
school, high school, college, graduate school. Take your pick.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence, but, have no scientific alternative
available. Amazing.
No, my friend, you absolutely refuse to present any evidence. And I'm
questioning your faith in evolution. I don't have to present an
alternative.
Does Pat Robertson have your number?
If by that you mean: "Is Pat Robertson an *****?" I would have to
answer: "Yes, Pat Robertson is an *****."
He's looking for folks like you.
Nope -- he's looking for folks like you. People who have a dogmatic
faith that they mistakenly call "science".
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 07:33:01 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2005 17:22:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131758540.973640.137090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
Thousands of generations of really pissed-off fruit flies can attest to
that.
Your assertion is entertaining.
I'm glad you think so. Do you understand why I said it? I'll assume
you didn't.
I did.
Sorry for assuming you didn't.
The fact is; excited evolutionists have mucked around with fruit flies
for years and years trying to prove evolution. Fruit flies have
extremely short life spans -- so the scientists had hoped they could
"cause" evolution. They would get excited for awhile when it looked
like they were making some headway, but the changes would never go
beyond a certain point.
When it comes to fruit flies, evolutionary faith has run into the brick
wall of the laws of genetic science. That's why genetics doesn't work
as a motor for evolution. Genetics says "changes have limits".
Exactly the opposite of what evolution needs.
Nice misunderstanding of it.
Maybe you didn't understand it after all.
And this is the classic evolutionist response. The inference that the
other part is just too dense to understand it -- that they just don't
get it. Be always a careful of just what it is that they "didn't
understand".
Fact: Evolutionists expected to change fruit flies indefinitely --
some even hoped to created new a new species. Reality: Fruit flies
could only change so far before they became sterile and died out. Left
alone they reverted to type. This is genetics in action.
Now, what exactly don't I understand?
Your comments don't appear to bear that out. The amount of evidence is
far greater than you seem to be aware of.
Right -- we're just not going to tell anybody about it. (It's our
little secret.)
Which college textbook would you like to start with?
Any one. Give me your best shot. WOW me.
Would a middle school text work for you?
Any evolutionary book of fiction will do. Primary school, middle
school, high school, college, graduate school. Take your pick.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence, but, have no scientific alternative
available. Amazing.
No, my friend, you absolutely refuse to present any evidence. And I'm
questioning your faith in evolution. I don't have to present an
alternative.
Does Pat Robertson have your number?
If by that you mean: "Is Pat Robertson an *****?" I would have to
answer: "Yes, Pat Robertson is an *****."
He's looking for folks like you.
Nope -- he's looking for folks like you. People who have a dogmatic
faith that they mistakenly call "science".
So, what was the alternative that you think better reflects the
evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 09:23:50 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3hhan1l3e1p4cc1959f1koh7d2d15fhh6s@4ax.com...
On 11 Nov 2005 17:22:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131758540.973640.137090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:12:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
Thousands of generations of really pissed-off fruit flies can
attest to
that.
Your assertion is entertaining.
I'm glad you think so. Do you understand why I said it? I'll assume
you didn't.
I did.
Sorry for assuming you didn't.
The fact is; excited evolutionists have mucked around with fruit flies
for years and years trying to prove evolution. Fruit flies have
extremely short life spans -- so the scientists had hoped they could
"cause" evolution. They would get excited for awhile when it looked
like they were making some headway, but the changes would never go
beyond a certain point.
When it comes to fruit flies, evolutionary faith has run into the brick
wall of the laws of genetic science. That's why genetics doesn't work
as a motor for evolution. Genetics says "changes have limits".
Exactly the opposite of what evolution needs.
Nice misunderstanding of it.
Maybe you didn't understand it after all.
And this is the classic evolutionist response. The inference that the
other part is just too dense to understand it -- that they just don't
get it. Be always a careful of just what it is that they "didn't
understand".
Fact: Evolutionists expected to change fruit flies indefinitely --
some even hoped to created new a new species. Reality: Fruit flies
could only change so far before they became sterile and died out. Left
alone they reverted to type. This is genetics in action.
Now, what exactly don't I understand?
Your comments don't appear to bear that out. The amount of
evidence is
far greater than you seem to be aware of.
Right -- we're just not going to tell anybody about it. (It's our
little secret.)
Which college textbook would you like to start with?
Any one. Give me your best shot. WOW me.
Would a middle school text work for you?
Any evolutionary book of fiction will do. Primary school, middle
school, high school, college, graduate school. Take your pick.
Opponents of science? You mean evolutionists -- right?
Boring.
Yes evolutionists are, and they're also repetitive and never present
proof for their faith.
You refuse to accept the evidence, but, have no scientific alternative
available. Amazing.
No, my friend, you absolutely refuse to present any evidence. And I'm
questioning your faith in evolution. I don't have to present an
alternative.
Does Pat Robertson have your number?
If by that you mean: "Is Pat Robertson an *****?" I would have to
answer: "Yes, Pat Robertson is an *****."
He's looking for folks like you.
Nope -- he's looking for folks like you. People who have a dogmatic
faith that they mistakenly call "science".
So, what was the alternative that you think better reflects the
evidence?
Are you able to defend your claims, point by point, in
detail? If not, then you have proved yourself ignorant
of science and yet, wish to portray yourself as some
great intellect and knowledge, who's going to educate
us poor dumb Christians. <chuckle>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 07:36:25 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
So, what was the alternative that you think better reflects the
evidence?
Could you be specific about what it is you're talking about?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 07:49:46 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2005 17:36:25 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131759385.393481.298110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
So, what was the alternative that you think better reflects the
evidence?
Could you be specific about what it is you're talking about?
You claim that evolution is an inadequate theory. What scientific theory
do you support that explains the history of life on earth?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 07:25:31 PM |
|
|
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
And this is the classic evolutionist response. The inference that the
other party is just too dense to understand it -- that they just don't
get it. But always careful not to define just what it is that they supposedly "didn't
understand".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
08 Nov 2005 06:03:06 PM |
|
|
emeraldbluesky wrote:
The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution because, (and I
have
not studied this issue in months) the Cambrian Explosion where thousands of
new
species and new classes of species do not have any transitional examples.
And what is a "transitional" fossil?
All the fossil relics of the transition of Man can fit in a few small boxes
with not one
complete skeleton or even a complete skull. There are however some
spectacular
frauds.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 04:19:32 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 09:49:45 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Except of course that no matter nuch you lie about it, evolution
happened.
Is that your profession of faith, Mr. Lee?
No, it's a fact, liar.
Well you *do* sound like someone who is defending his faith.
Evolution is the label that was given to the observed change and
diversion in the fossil record 250 or more years ago.
And creation was a label that given far earlier. (If the age of the
label is what *really* counts.)
This won't un-happen no matter how much lying creationists close their
ears and eyes.
What *exactly* won't un-happen? Fossils? I know about fossils -- and
they are an embarrassment to evolutionists.
The faq at www.talkorigins.org gives examples of observed speciation
in present-day species.
No it doesn't.
I quote from Richard Dawkins, who is a devout evolutionist.
There is no such thing outside the dishonesty and lies of
creationists. There is nothing to be devout about, and "evolutionist"
is a label you apply to anybody with a grasp of reality.
Believe me, friend, Richard Dawkins is clearly a devout evolutionist.
He believes -- the facts come in second place (or not at all -- in the
case of "dinosaurs to birds").
Congratulations on your ability to spot *****. But, please, don't
shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
Hardly. You're a quote-mining liar.
Once again -- I only quoted from Richard Dawkins, a devout
evolutionist. If you have a problem with the asinine things he says --
take it up *him* -- not with me, the messenger.
You're pretty loose with that word "liar". Would you care to show me
where I lied? (You know "proof", the thing evolutionists have such a
problem with.)
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 04:51:43 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2005 14:19:32 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 09:49:45 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Except of course that no matter nuch you lie about it, evolution
happened.
Is that your profession of faith, Mr. Lee?
No, it's a fact, liar.
Well you *do* sound like someone who is defending his faith.
Idiot. Reality doesn't take faith
Evolution is the label that was given to the observed change and
diversion in the fossil record 250 or more years ago.
And creation was a label that given far earlier. (If the age of the
label is what *really* counts.)
Idiot. EVOLUTION IS THE LABEL GIVEN TO THE OBSERVED CHANGE AND
DIVERSION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
Why pretend it is the age of the label?
WAS CREATION OBSERVED?
This won't un-happen no matter how much lying creationists close their
ears and eyes.
What *exactly* won't un-happen? Fossils? I know about fossils -- and
they are an embarrassment to evolutionists.
THE OBSERVATIONS OF CHANGE AND DIVERGENCE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD THAT
WERE GIVEN THE LABEL EVOLUTION, moron.
Are you really this stupid of just being an *****?
And there's no such thing as an "evolutionist". That is a dishonest
label by creationists for anybody who isn't one of them.
'
The faq at www.talkorigins.org gives examples of observed speciation
in present-day species.
No it doesn't.
Two FAQs at talk.origins, liar:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
I quote from Richard Dawkins, who is a devout evolutionist.
There is no such thing outside the dishonesty and lies of
creationists. There is nothing to be devout about, and "evolutionist"
is a label you apply to anybody with a grasp of reality.
Believe me, friend, Richard Dawkins is clearly a devout evolutionist.
He believes -- the facts come in second place (or not at all -- in the
case of "dinosaurs to birds").
Liar. Dinosaurs to birds is a known lineage. And there's stillno such
thing as an "evolutionist" outside the dishonety of creationists who
to reduce reality to an -ism. Let alone a devout one.
Congratulations on your ability to spot *****. But, please, don't
shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
Hardly. You're a quote-mining liar.
Once again -- I only quoted from Richard Dawkins, a devout
evolutionist. If you have a problem with the asinine things he says --
take it up *him* -- not with me, the messenger.
ONCE AGAIN, "EVOLUTIONIST" IS A CREATIONIST DISHONESTY.
And I'm not talking with him but with you. You didn't quote him.
You're pretty loose with that word "liar". Would you care to show me
where I lied? (You know "proof", the thing evolutionists have such a
problem with.)
Everywhere I called you a liar.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 05:35:23 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:19:32 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 09:49:45 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Except of course that no matter nuch you lie about it, evolution
happened.
Is that your profession of faith, Mr. Lee?
No, it's a fact, liar.
Well you *do* sound like someone who is defending his faith.
Idiot. Reality doesn't take faith
Yes, but a belief in evolution does require faith. (Am I supposed to
say "Idiot" at the beginning of every sentence or is that just
something evolutionist idiots do?)
Evolution is the label that was given to the observed change and
diversion in the fossil record 250 or more years ago.
And creation was a label that given far earlier. (If the age of the
label is what *really* counts.)
Idiot. EVOLUTION IS THE LABEL GIVEN TO THE OBSERVED CHANGE AND
DIVERSION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
Are you yelling? Are you drooling? (It looks that way -- the CAPS
thing.)
Evolution is an attempted method to explain the diversity in the fossil
record. The fact that is, it doesn't show change. (Them little 'ole
link things -- you know -- as in "missing".)
Why pretend it is the age of the label?
One of your fellow evolutionist brothers thought the age was important.
I was responding to him. Ask him why.
WAS CREATION OBSERVED?
This won't un-happen no matter how much lying creationists close their
ears and eyes.
What *exactly* won't un-happen? Fossils? I know about fossils -- and
they are an embarrassment to evolutionists.
THE OBSERVATIONS OF CHANGE AND DIVERGENCE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD THAT
WERE GIVEN THE LABEL EVOLUTION, moron.
You really haven't been keeping up on the so-called "evolution science"
have you? The fossil record is not an evolutionists friend. Ask
Eldredge and Gould if you don't believe me.
Are you really this stupid of just being an *****?
Yoo-hoo, over here -- stop talking into the mirror.
And there's no such thing as an "evolutionist". That is a dishonest
label by creationists for anybody who isn't one of them.
Horseshit. Evolutionist is a common name. (But I can understand why
you would shy away from it.)
I quote from Richard Dawkins, who is a devout evolutionist.
There is no such thing outside the dishonesty and lies of
creationists. There is nothing to be devout about, and "evolutionist"
is a label you apply to anybody with a grasp of reality.
Believe me, friend, Richard Dawkins is clearly a devout evolutionist.
He believes -- the facts come in second place (or not at all -- in the
case of "dinosaurs to birds").
Liar. Dinosaurs to birds is a known lineage. And there's stillno such
thing as an "evolutionist" outside the dishonety of creationists who
to reduce reality to an -ism. Let alone a devout one.
Now you're giving me the giggles. Show me this "KNOWN" lineage of
"dinosaurs to birds". (I mean other than in the decrepit imagination
of a dottering old evolutionist fool like Richard Dawkins.)
Congratulations on your ability to spot *****. But, please, don't
shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
Hardly. You're a quote-mining liar.
Once again -- I only quoted from Richard Dawkins, a devout
evolutionist. If you have a problem with the asinine things he says --
take it up *him* -- not with me, the messenger.
ONCE AGAIN, "EVOLUTIONIST" IS A CREATIONIST DISHONESTY.
Boy, you EVOLUTIONISTS really don't like that label, do you?
And I'm not talking with him but with you. You didn't quote him.
You're pretty loose with that word "liar". Would you care to show me
where I lied? (You know "proof", the thing evolutionists have such a
problem with.)
Everywhere I called you a liar.
OK, sure -- it's just that you're beginning to look like the guy with
the shopping cart who's having a shouting match with himself. He might
be entertaining be he isn't exactly considered stable. Real science
(and real scientists) don't have to screech all the time to get their
point across. (Why don't you ask one about that sometime.)
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 05:52:19 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2005 15:35:23 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 14:19:32 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 09:49:45 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Except of course that no matter nuch you lie about it, evolution
happened.
Is that your profession of faith, Mr. Lee?
No, it's a fact, liar.
Well you *do* sound like someone who is defending his faith.
Idiot. Reality doesn't take faith
Yes, but a belief in evolution does require faith. (Am I supposed to
Anybody who says this is either a liar or an idiot. Which are you?
say "Idiot" at the beginning of every sentence or is that just
something evolutionist idiots do?)
I on
Evolution is the label that was given to the observed change and
diversion in the fossil record 250 or more years ago.
And creation was a label that given far earlier. (If the age of the
label is what *really* counts.)
Idiot. EVOLUTION IS THE LABEL GIVEN TO THE OBSERVED CHANGE AND
DIVERSION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
Are you yelling? Are you drooling? (It looks that way -- the CAPS
thing.)
Trying to penetrate your ignorant skull.
Evolution is an attempted method to explain the diversity in the fossil
record. The fact that is, it doesn't show change. (Them little 'ole
link things -- you know -- as in "missing".)
What do you imagine you are achieving by repeating this lie?
Go to any natural history museum.
Why pretend it is the age of the label?
One of your fellow evolutionist brothers thought the age was important.
I was responding to him. Ask him why.
What "evolutionist brothers", liar?
WAS CREATION OBSERVED?
This won't un-happen no matter how much lying creationists close their
ears and eyes.
What *exactly* won't un-happen? Fossils? I know about fossils -- and
they are an embarrassment to evolutionists.
THE OBSERVATIONS OF CHANGE AND DIVERGENCE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD THAT
WERE GIVEN THE LABEL EVOLUTION, moron.
You really haven't been keeping up on the so-called "evolution science"
have you? The fossil record is not an evolutionists friend. Ask
Eldredge and Gould if you don't believe me.
Again, are you a liar or an idiot.
GO TO THE FRIKKING NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM AND SEE THEM FOR YOURSELF.
But I'm not talking with Eldredge or Gould. Neither of whom say what
you pretend.
Are you really this stupid of just being an *****?
Yoo-hoo, over here -- stop talking into the mirror.
GO TO THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.
And there's no such thing as an "evolutionist". That is a dishonest
label by creationists for anybody who isn't one of them.
Horseshit. Evolutionist is a common name. (But I can understand why
you would shy away from it.)
Yet another lie. It is a label introduced by dishonest creationists is
an attempt to reduce reality to an -ism.
I quote from Richard Dawkins, who is a devout evolutionist.
There is no such thing outside the dishonesty and lies of
creationists. There is nothing to be devout about, and "evolutionist"
is a label you apply to anybody with a grasp of reality.
Believe me, friend, Richard Dawkins is clearly a devout evolutionist.
He believes -- the facts come in second place (or not at all -- in the
case of "dinosaurs to birds").
Liar. Dinosaurs to birds is a known lineage. And there's stillno such
thing as an "evolutionist" outside the dishonety of creationists who
to reduce reality to an -ism. Let alone a devout one.
Now you're giving me the giggles. Show me this "KNOWN" lineage of
"dinosaurs to birds". (I mean other than in the decrepit imagination
of a dottering old evolutionist fool like Richard Dawkins.)
GO TO THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.
Congratulations on your ability to spot *****. But, please, don't
shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
Hardly. You're a quote-mining liar.
Once again -- I only quoted from Richard Dawkins, a devout
evolutionist. If you have a problem with the asinine things he says --
take it up *him* -- not with me, the messenger.
ONCE AGAIN, "EVOLUTIONIST" IS A CREATIONIST DISHONESTY.
Boy, you EVOLUTIONISTS really don't like that label, do you?
What "evolutionists", liar?
Nobody "believes in it". It is simply part of reality.
The reason it is not liked is because it is dishonest. Why do you keep
ignoring this?
And I'm not talking with him but with you. You didn't quote him.
You're pretty loose with that word "liar". Would you care to show me
where I lied? (You know "proof", the thing evolutionists have such a
problem with.)
Everywhere I called you a liar.
OK, sure -- it's just that you're beginning to look like the guy with
the shopping cart who's having a shouting match with himself. He might
be entertaining be he isn't exactly considered stable. Real science
(and real scientists) don't have to screech all the time to get their
point across. (Why don't you ask one about that sometime.)
Don't lie and you won't be called a liar.
Why are creationists so in-your-face dishonest?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 06:39:20 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 15:35:23 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
Idiot. EVOLUTION IS THE LABEL GIVEN TO THE OBSERVED CHANGE AND
DIVERSION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
Are you yelling? Are you drooling? (It looks that way -- the CAPS
thing.)
Trying to penetrate your ignorant skull.
With drool?
Evolution is an attempted method to explain the diversity in the fossil
record. The fact that is, it doesn't show change. (Them little 'ole
link things -- you know -- as in "missing".)
What do you imagine you are achieving by repeating this lie?
Go to any natural history museum.
And see what? C'mon you can tell me. (Oh, I guess maybe you can't.)
Why pretend it is the age of the label?
One of your fellow evolutionist brothers thought the age was important.
I was responding to him. Ask him why.
What "evolutionist brothers", liar?
Why should I care which evolutionist brother liar it was?
WAS CREATION OBSERVED?
This won't un-happen no matter how much lying creationists close their
ears and eyes.
What *exactly* won't un-happen? Fossils? I know about fossils -- and
they are an embarrassment to evolutionists.
THE OBSERVATIONS OF CHANGE AND DIVERGENCE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD THAT
WERE GIVEN THE LABEL EVOLUTION, moron.
You really haven't been keeping up on the so-called "evolution science"
have you? The fossil record is not an evolutionists friend. Ask
Eldredge and Gould if you don't believe me.
Again, are you a liar or an idiot.
Do you know who Eldrege and Gould are? (I don't mind that you call
them liars, but you might, if you knew who they were.)
GO TO THE FRIKKING NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM AND SEE THEM FOR YOURSELF.
What do you imagine I will see there? (C'mon -- this like pulling
teeth from a giraffe.)
But I'm not talking with Eldredge or Gould. Neither of whom say what
you pretend.
Well -- I don't think you could actually talk to Gould (may God rest
his soul). I actually meant that you could study what they wrote.
It's not very flattering to the "Fossils are god" group of
evolutionists.
Are you really this stupid of just being an *****?
Yoo-hoo, over here -- stop talking into the mirror.
GO TO THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.
See what? Tell me what I might s | | | | | |
