| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
24 Sep 2005 07:38:36 AM |
| Object: |
"Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
The second most dishonest so-called Christian on the Internet, "Pastor
Dave" has a current thread which is based on nothing but his lie that
no one can demonstrate so-called macroevolution.
He claims to understands science, but he's a liar. He demands proof,
but if he understood science, he would know that scientists never claim
to have "proven" anything. His equivocation (that the media portrays
scientists making unguarded comments about fact and proof - none of
which ever appear in peer-reviewed science papers) is unsupported and
irrelevant.
The fact about evolution is that it is a fact! The scientific Theory
of Evolution is a time-tested explanation for evolution. It explains
evolution better than *anything else that's ever been suggested* and
there are no competing theories that explain these facts. *That's* why
it's accepted as the next best thing to proof, and *that's* why it's
taught in schools.
Pastor Dave's dishonesty is broadcast loudly by two facts: he will not
accept anyone else's definition of macroevolution and he will not
define it himself so that others can supply evidence for it!
In other words, he wants alt.atheism regulars to prove a scientific
fact which he will not define! How stupid can you get? Clearly with
Pastor Dave, there's no depth he's incapable of plumbing.
The fact is that macroevolution is nothing more than so-called
microevolution over an extended period of time. I am sure that if
Pastor dave disagrees with this he will provide refutation with
references (like *that* ever happens).
Pastor Dave has been repeatedly told that the evidence for evolution is
not in alt.atheism, but in peer-reviewed science papers published in
the refereed science journals. If he were honest, he would go read
those.
He doesn't do that because he's dishonest and rather than seek the
truth at the source, he'd rather set up his arrogant court of
evolution, where he, the most unqualified person on the planet,
pretends to be some sort of a god sitting in judgement on lesser
mortals, so he can promote his lie that science is impotent.
What blasphemous arrogance! Only morons would conduct themselves that
way.
And what hypocrisy! The Theory of Evolution uses precisely the same
scientific method that other sciences use. If it didn't work, then
Pastor Dave would not be able to use that same science to insult
scientists on the Internet!
He foolishly pretends he and he alone can determine what is evidence
and what isn't in a matter in which he has no professional or academic
qualifications. He's like that colossal moron Fred Williams, who
idiotically claims that he (an electrical engineer) can determine if a
set of fossils are transitional from merely glancing at their
photographs!
Of course no one can show Pastor Dave any evidence. He won't let 'em!
He flatly denies (without offering a shred of support for his amateur
denials) all of the evidence out-of-hand no matter what it is, without
even a discussion, which he dishonestly claimed he was prepared to
enter into.
He will not even help those willing to meet his challenge by defining a
few things - like macroevolution, like what "proof" he will accept,
like what "kind" is, like what mechanism it is that prevents one "kind"
from changing into another "kind" (not that any creationist ever has
been able to find the wherewithal to answer the last two challenges).
Pastor Dave obviously thinks he is god almighty.
He's wrong.
He claims there is no evidence for macroevolution.
He's a liar, because here it is, in the form of Sphecomyrma Freyi:
As these articles discuss:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/25/13678
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1998/A/199800382.html
http://www.antnest.co.uk/Origin.html
http://www.antcolony.org/oldest_ant.htm
the "ant kind" and the "wasp kind" had a common ancestor, precisely as
the theory of evolution predicted.
Therefore macroevolution is demonstrated and predictably, Disaster Dave
is a liar.
Budikka - Don't put Pastor Dave where an intelligent question has been
asked
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
26 Sep 2005 09:00:04 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
The second most dishonest so-called Christian on the Internet, "Pastor
Dave" has a current thread which is based on nothing but his lie that
no one can demonstrate so-called macroevolution.
Ok, demostrate it.
The fact about evolution is that it is a fact! The scientific Theory
of Evolution is a time-tested explanation for evolution.
Is it fact or is it theory? Please make up your mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
27 Sep 2005 04:46:32 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
The second most dishonest so-called Christian on the Internet, "Pastor
Dave" has a current thread which is based on nothing but his lie that
no one can demonstrate so-called macroevolution.
Ok, demostrate it.
The fact about evolution is that it is a fact! The scientific Theory
of Evolution is a time-tested explanation for evolution.
Is it fact or is it theory? Please make up your mind.
===>It is like GRAVITATION.
It is a FACT, and there are two THEORIES,
Newton's and Einstein's to EXPLAIN IT.
Evolution is a FACT, and there are a number of
THEORIES to explain it. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
24 Sep 2005 01:25:35 PM |
|
|
On 24 Sep 2005 05:38:36 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
The second most dishonest so-called Christian on the Internet, "Pastor
Dave" has a current thread which is based on nothing but his lie that
no one can demonstrate so-called macroevolution.
Well, dud, you are the most dishonest, so why are you picking on PD?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
24 Sep 2005 04:03:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:25:35 -0500, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> spake thusly:
On 24 Sep 2005 05:38:36 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
The second most dishonest so-called Christian on the Internet, "Pastor
Dave" has a current thread which is based on nothing but his lie that
no one can demonstrate so-called macroevolution.
Well, dud, you are the most dishonest, so why are you picking on PD?
He's upset, because I pointed out his lies. Buddika is
a lying dufus for Satan, plain and simple.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
All those who wish to pretend
to be Christians, while prmoting
anti-Biblical doctrines, will be
called on their heresy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
24 Sep 2005 05:24:25 PM |
|
|
Disaster Dave Lied Again:
He's upset, because I pointed out his lies.
The liar is the one who claims there is no macroevolution, whereas I've
now pointed out four examples right off the top of my head:
http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
http://tinyurl.com/b5sjn
http://tinyurl.com/7lvwr
http://tinyurl.com/ah4wn
with many more to some.
The liar is the one who states that he will discuss the evidence, and
then he runs away.
The liar is the one who claims there is no macroevolution but cannot
even define what it is.
The liar is the one who cannot define "kind" and then claims there's no
way one "kind" can change into another over time.
The liar is the one who claims that claims there's no way one "kind"
can change into another over time, yet cannot even begin to define a
mechanism which prevents it.
The liar is the one who claims he understands science when every
message he posts clearly demonstrates that he does not.
The liar is the one who claims there's no proof of evolution when the
truth is that there's no science paper ever been published that claims
absolute irrefutable eternal proof of anything.
The liar is the one who reads only media reports of scientific
discoveries containing loose talk and short-hand from scientists and
the media, and then proclaims by fiat that these are certified
scientific truths that he will knock over, instead of actually having
the honesty and integrity to read the scientific material instead of
the media reports.
The liar is the one who, as Elroy pointed out, claims there's no proof
of evolution yet will not even help others to help him by defining
precisely what he will accept as proof even when he's been asked
politely and respectfully.
Budikka - never put a Disaster Dave where thinking is required
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
24 Sep 2005 05:30:15 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
The liar is the one who, as Elroy pointed out, claims there's no proof
of evolution yet will not even help others to help him by defining
precisely what he will accept as proof even when he's been asked
politely and respectfully.
Here's his proof:
http://www.elroysemporium.com/pictures/wildlife/rabbits/babyrabbit1.jpg
My cat gave birth to a rabbit! Pictures don't lie! Who needs
fossils?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
25 Sep 2005 05:49:29 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
The liar is the one who, as Elroy pointed out, claims there's no proof
of evolution yet will not even help others to help him by defining
precisely what he will accept as proof even when he's been asked
politely and respectfully.
Here's his proof:
http://www.elroysemporium.com/pictures/wildlife/rabbits/babyrabbit1.jpg
My cat gave birth to a rabbit! Pictures don't lie! Who needs
fossils?
I almost became diabetic looking at that! That is soooo cute! The
rabbit is so tiny.
Actually looking at that reminded me that there is another avenue to
hit Disaster Dave with. How can a cell "evolve" into an embryo, a
child, and eventually an adult? That requires far more change (using
creationist criteria) than for something like a chimpanzee to change
into a human. Maybe I'll post soemthing on that today!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
25 Sep 2005 06:26:41 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
The liar is the one who, as Elroy pointed out, claims there's no proof
of evolution yet will not even help others to help him by defining
precisely what he will accept as proof even when he's been asked
politely and respectfully.
Here's his proof:
http://www.elroysemporium.com/pictures/wildlife/rabbits/babyrabbit1.jpg
My cat gave birth to a rabbit! Pictures don't lie! Who needs
fossils?
I almost became diabetic looking at that! That is soooo cute! The
rabbit is so tiny.
Diabetic?
Actually looking at that reminded me that there is another avenue to
hit Disaster Dave with. How can a cell "evolve" into an embryo, a
child, and eventually an adult? That requires far more change (using
creationist criteria) than for something like a chimpanzee to change
into a human. Maybe I'll post soemthing on that today!
He'll just say god does it, I'm sure.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
25 Sep 2005 03:35:27 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Diabetic?
Sugar overload!
Actually looking at that reminded me that there is another avenue to
hit Disaster Dave with. How can a cell "evolve" into an embryo, a
child, and eventually an adult? That requires far more change (using
creationist criteria) than for something like a chimpanzee to change
into a human. Maybe I'll post soemthing on that today!
He'll just say god does it, I'm sure.
I'm guessing he'll avoid it like the plague, but I did post it earlier
so I'm going back to see what's new there.
B.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
24 Sep 2005 04:33:42 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> spake thusly:
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
The second most dishonest so-called Christian on the Internet, "Pastor
Dave" has a current thread which is based on nothing but his lie that
no one can demonstrate so-called macroevolution.
Well, dud, you are the most dishonest, so why are you picking on PD?
He's upset, because I pointed out his lies. Buddika is
a lying dufus for Satan, plain and simple.
When are you gonna describe for everyone around here what would prove
macroevolution true for you? Let's see your detailed description if
you don't mind. None of that cats giving birth to dogs rubbish
either, since that's not what evolution actually describes or
predicts.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
24 Sep 2005 05:30:43 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
When are you gonna describe for everyone around here what would prove
macroevolution true for you? Let's see your detailed description if
you don't mind. None of that cats giving birth to dogs rubbish
either, since that's not what evolution actually describes or
predicts.
I asked him that right from the off and **HE RAN AWAY**. His
chickenshit behavior is now manifest all over Usenet since he's run
from every single one of the four examples I posted and from every
other challenger that I've seen take him on. His credibility is shot
and I'm going to keep posting examples, too, to continue showing what a
coward and a liar he is.
But Disaster Dave isn't the only coward and liar posting on Usenet, or
even in this thread. There is another one, known for issuing
challenges and then running as soon as he gets in over his head. He
has seventeen documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
That's one of many reasons he's been mass-plonked. Kind of
appropriate, *mass* plonking a Catholic, dontcha think?! LoL!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
24 Sep 2005 05:41:37 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
When are you gonna describe for everyone around here what would prove
macroevolution true for you? Let's see your detailed description if
you don't mind. None of that cats giving birth to dogs rubbish
either, since that's not what evolution actually describes or
predicts.
I asked him that right from the off and **HE RAN AWAY**.
Not surprising. I think he has me plonked or on ignore.
His chickenshit behavior is now manifest all over Usenet since he's run
from every single one of the four examples I posted and from every
other challenger that I've seen take him on. His credibility is shot
and I'm going to keep posting examples, too, to continue showing
what a coward and a liar he is.
It's probably just a waste of time, don't you think? You don't
actually expect him to change his mind, admitting that he was wrong,
do you?
But Disaster Dave isn't the only coward and liar posting on Usenet, or
even in this thread. There is another one, known for issuing
challenges and then running as soon as he gets in over his head. He
has seventeen documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
That's one of many reasons he's been mass-plonked. Kind of
appropriate, *mass* plonking a Catholic, dontcha think?! LoL!
Have you tried using living examples of transitional animals yet? I'm
trying that in an email discussion right now, using the seal, but the
creationist wants to see a seal with two full back legs. I think it's
hopeless by using fossils or living animals with people like Pester
Dave and the fellow I'm talking to in email. They'll reject any
evidence you put forth, asking for more and more in-between fossils or
examples, until it becomes obvious that they'll never change their
minds.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
25 Sep 2005 05:45:35 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
When are you gonna describe for everyone around here what would prove
macroevolution true for you? Let's see your detailed description if
you don't mind. None of that cats giving birth to dogs rubbish
either, since that's not what evolution actually describes or
predicts.
I asked him that right from the off and **HE RAN AWAY**.
Not surprising. I think he has me plonked or on ignore.
It's nice to be in such good company!
His chickenshit behavior is now manifest all over Usenet since he's run
from every single one of the four examples I posted and from every
other challenger that I've seen take him on. His credibility is shot
and I'm going to keep posting examples, too, to continue showing
what a coward and a liar he is.
It's probably just a waste of time, don't you think? You don't
actually expect him to change his mind, admitting that he was wrong,
do you?
No! But neither am I going to let his ilk get away with their lies
without being challenged.
Have you tried using living examples of transitional animals yet? I'm
trying that in an email discussion right now, using the seal, but the
creationist wants to see a seal with two full back legs. I think it's
hopeless by using fossils or living animals with people like Pester
Dave and the fellow I'm talking to in email. They'll reject any
evidence you put forth, asking for more and more in-between fossils or
examples, until it becomes obvious that they'll never change their
minds.
It's just the god of the gaps argument revisited. I forget who first
said it, but when a transitional is found between two fossils, that
doesn't close the gap for the creationists. Instead it makes *two*
gaps, between the first fossil and the transitional and between the
transitional and the second fossil!
I haven't used living examples yet. They're perfectly valid, since
everything (including the human brain from what I've been reading
lately!) is still in process of evolving, but it's a bit harder to show
a "before and after" (as it were), since we can't show what it is
they're evolving into.
A seal is a good example. I think a whale is better since some species
do have vestigial hind legs, and a lot of whale ancestor fossils have
been discovered relatively recently. A good book on this topic is "At
the Water's Edge" By Carl Zimmer (Zimmer wrote the companion book to
the PBS series "Evolution").
The whale is a good example because there once were no transitionals.
This was good ammunition for the creationists, but the fact that their
argument was based on *lack* of evidence rather than evidence was once
again their undoing. When the trasnsitional forms were found,
precisely as Darwin predicted, the hind legs, paradoxically,
disappeared from under the creationists!
Some constrictor snakes also have vestigial hind legs/pelvic girdles.
An okapi is a good example of what a transitional giraffe might have
looked like.
On a broader scale, we have "transitionals" in the very classes of
animals, particularly vertebrates: an amphibian is akin to a transition
between fish and reptile. Lower on the scale we have frog fish,
walking catfish, mudskippers, lung fish and lobe-fins which are
representative of transitionals from fish to amphibians, etc.
I prefer to address this at the genomic level for several reasons. The
creationists love to play at the anatomical level because it suits
their mentality so well. Their "logic" loves to pretend that something
like a mouse cannot become a human because they *look* so different.
They call this "science"! I think if we address it at that level,
we're playing the creationist game. We need to force them to play the
scientific game - the only valid game when it comes to the diversity
and distribution of life on Earth.
If you notice their behavior, they consistently run away from genetic
challenges, because they cannot withstand them (assuming they even
understand them). You'll notice that Disaster Dave poo-poohed or
lightly dismissed everyone's suggestions but mine. He consistently ran
from mine because he knows for a fact that he cannot refute genetic
evidence.
He can pretend, at the anatomical level that a mouse (or a chimpanzee)
is "too different" from a human for change from one to the other to be
possible. They look like different "kinds", but such "barriers"
(whether "kind" or species) effectively disappear when you get down to
DNA. Creationists know this even if they themselves cannot accept it.
They're beaten before they start.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
25 Sep 2005 06:35:54 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Have you tried using living examples of transitional animals yet? I'm
trying that in an email discussion right now, using the seal, but the
creationist wants to see a seal with two full back legs. I think it's
hopeless by using fossils or living animals with people like Pester
Dave and the fellow I'm talking to in email. They'll reject any
evidence you put forth, asking for more and more in-between fossils or
examples, until it becomes obvious that they'll never change their
minds.
It's just the god of the gaps argument revisited. I forget who first
said it, but when a transitional is found between two fossils, that
doesn't close the gap for the creationists. Instead it makes *two*
gaps, between the first fossil and the transitional and between the
transitional and the second fossil!
I haven't used living examples yet. They're perfectly valid, since
everything (including the human brain from what I've been reading
lately!) is still in process of evolving, but it's a bit harder to show
a "before and after" (as it were), since we can't show what it is
they're evolving into.
A seal is a good example. I think a whale is better since some species
do have vestigial hind legs, and a lot of whale ancestor fossils have
been discovered relatively recently. A good book on this topic is "At
the Water's Edge" By Carl Zimmer (Zimmer wrote the companion book to
the PBS series "Evolution").
Do you have a good weblink for detailed pictures of skeletons of sea
mammals? Not fossil pictures, but pictures of skeletons of modern
animals like seals, dolphins, manitees, whales, etc.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
25 Sep 2005 03:33:54 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Do you have a good weblink for detailed pictures of skeletons of sea
mammals? Not fossil pictures, but pictures of skeletons of modern
animals like seals, dolphins, manitees, whales, etc.
No, I don't, sorry! I just use a search engine for whatever it is I'm
looking for. Out of curiosity, I did a search on Google just now for
keywords like "anatomy", "animal skeletons", "vertebrate skeletons",
etc., and it didn't turn up much of use. Maybe Yahoo or Ask Jeeves
might do better, but you'd be better off posting a question like that
on the talk.origns news group.
B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jani" |
|
| Title: Re: "Macroevolution" From Which Pastor Dave Runs - Example 4 |
25 Sep 2005 04:29:24 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1127680434.338280.95730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Elroy Willis wrote:
Do you have a good weblink for detailed pictures of skeletons of sea
mammals? Not fossil pictures, but pictures of skeletons of modern
animals like seals, dolphins, manitees, whales, etc.
No, I don't, sorry! I just use a search engine for whatever it is I'm
looking for. Out of curiosity, I did a search on Google just now for
keywords like "anatomy", "animal skeletons", "vertebrate skeletons",
etc., and it didn't turn up much of use. Maybe Yahoo or Ask Jeeves
might do better, but you'd be better off posting a question like that
on the talk.origns news group.
Not exactly what was asked for, I know, but might be of interest here:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html
Jani
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
