| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2005 08:58:51 PM |
| Object: |
Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
By following these few simple rules that have been developed, tried and
**PROVEN** by Pastor Dave himself, you are guaranteed to win **ANY**
argument on Usenet. Here they are:
1. Never let anyone else define the terms. Even if it is a globally
understood definition (for example, that evolution is a change in
allele frequency in a population, or that so-called macroevolution is
simply microevolution over an extended time-period), absolutely refuse
to let anyone define it.
2. If someone asks *you* to define your terms (for example, if you're
asked to supply a definition of so-called macroevolution), run away!
3. Demand absolute proof. Never mind that, for example, it is
religion, and not science that's in the business of declaring eternal,
unchanging, definitive and absolute truths! Instead, demand it from
science because you're sure you remember some scientist somewhere
(never say where) who, speaking loosely, said something is a fact.
4. **NEVER**, and I mean absolutely **NEVER EVER** define what you will
accept as proof.
5. Diss every single reference anyone offers you to support their
argument. Cavalierly rule out web sites (*especially* if it's
talkorigins.org), URL's, books, science journals, direct argument,
whatever. Implicitly demand that people use megabytes of bandwidth
making tedious arguments instead of simply using what the WWW is
designed for (convenience of URLs for one thing), and then frustrate
the poor hard-working sods by completely ignoring their patiently typed
out messages! By absolutely rejecting every single line of argument,
you can then turn around and insist that no one offered even evidence,
let alone proof!
6. Inevitably, when you are so cowardly, stupid, hypocritical,
obstinate, brainless, stonewalling so strenuously that you make Mount
Rushmore look soft, and shot-through with the most blatant lies, people
will call you cowardly, stupid, hypocritical, obstinate, brainless,
stonewalling so strenuously that you make Mount Rushmore look soft, and
shot-through with the most blatant lies! Then you can attack them ad
hominem style for using ad hominem attacks against you out of their
frustration that you will not even discuss the evidence as you so
freely promised to do in your dishonest challenge!
7. Occasionally appeal to poignancy by declaring how you have read a
science magazine or two and have a couple of old college textbooks on
your shelf and that you *do indeed* understand science at the most
fundamental level, that you are indeed earnestly seeking the truth and
then frustrate them again by *never* entering into any science
discussion over anything whatsoever!
9. Take umbrage at even the most decent, reasonable, respectful, and
polite requests for help! For instance if someone asks you to define
"kind" so that they can provide you with evidence of transition from
one "kind" to another "kind", absolutely do not define it. Insist that
the onus is on your opponent. If they reasonably request help in that
you posit a mechanism that would prevent one "kind" from transitioning
to another "kind" since science cannot find one, for god's sake do
*NOT* take pity on them and help them out with a scientifically defined
mechanism! Instead, become apoplectic at their very nerve.
10. Continuously demand proof from your oponent and chide them
mercilessly for not providing it even when they have provided 150
years' worth of it, but don't even remotely entertain a single request
from them that you provide proof for your own position. God forbid!
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
11 Oct 2005 08:37:23 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128995931.588850.302200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
By following these few simple rules that have been developed, tried and
**PROVEN** by Pastor Dave himself, you are guaranteed to win **ANY**
argument on Usenet. Here they are:
1. Never let anyone else define the terms. Even if it is a globally
understood definition (for example, that evolution is a change in
allele frequency in a population, or that so-called macroevolution is
simply microevolution over an extended time-period), absolutely refuse
to let anyone define it.
2. If someone asks *you* to define your terms (for example, if you're
asked to supply a definition of so-called macroevolution), run away!
3. Demand absolute proof. Never mind that, for example, it is
religion, and not science that's in the business of declaring eternal,
unchanging, definitive and absolute truths! Instead, demand it from
science because you're sure you remember some scientist somewhere
(never say where) who, speaking loosely, said something is a fact.
4. **NEVER**, and I mean absolutely **NEVER EVER** define what you will
accept as proof.
5. Diss every single reference anyone offers you to support their
argument. Cavalierly rule out web sites (*especially* if it's
talkorigins.org), URL's, books, science journals, direct argument,
whatever. Implicitly demand that people use megabytes of bandwidth
making tedious arguments instead of simply using what the WWW is
designed for (convenience of URLs for one thing), and then frustrate
the poor hard-working sods by completely ignoring their patiently typed
out messages! By absolutely rejecting every single line of argument,
you can then turn around and insist that no one offered even evidence,
let alone proof!
6. Inevitably, when you are so cowardly, stupid, hypocritical,
obstinate, brainless, stonewalling so strenuously that you make Mount
Rushmore look soft, and shot-through with the most blatant lies, people
will call you cowardly, stupid, hypocritical, obstinate, brainless,
stonewalling so strenuously that you make Mount Rushmore look soft, and
shot-through with the most blatant lies! Then you can attack them ad
hominem style for using ad hominem attacks against you out of their
frustration that you will not even discuss the evidence as you so
freely promised to do in your dishonest challenge!
7. Occasionally appeal to poignancy by declaring how you have read a
science magazine or two and have a couple of old college textbooks on
your shelf and that you *do indeed* understand science at the most
fundamental level, that you are indeed earnestly seeking the truth and
then frustrate them again by *never* entering into any science
discussion over anything whatsoever!
9. Take umbrage at even the most decent, reasonable, respectful, and
polite requests for help! For instance if someone asks you to define
"kind" so that they can provide you with evidence of transition from
one "kind" to another "kind", absolutely do not define it. Insist that
the onus is on your opponent. If they reasonably request help in that
you posit a mechanism that would prevent one "kind" from transitioning
to another "kind" since science cannot find one, for god's sake do
*NOT* take pity on them and help them out with a scientifically defined
mechanism! Instead, become apoplectic at their very nerve.
10. Continuously demand proof from your oponent and chide them
mercilessly for not providing it even when they have provided 150
years' worth of it, but don't even remotely entertain a single request
from them that you provide proof for your own position. God forbid!
Budikka
You've pegged him, and as he would say, <chuckle>.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
10 Oct 2005 11:11:59 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
By following these few simple rules that have been developed, tried and
**PROVEN** by Pastor Dave himself, you are guaranteed to win **ANY**
argument on Usenet. Here they are:
1. [...] 10. (Excellent!)
11. When all else fails, throw in a "<chuckles>" to indicate detached
bemusement, then when THAT fails, announce to the entire newsgroup that
you have just kill-filed that person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
11 Oct 2005 12:23:28 AM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1h48ino.1ipo49ewsgi0gN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
:
: Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
:
: > By following these few simple rules that have been developed, tried and
: > **PROVEN** by Pastor Dave himself, you are guaranteed to win **ANY**
: > argument on Usenet. Here they are:
: >
: > 1. [...] 10. (Excellent!)
:
: 11. When all else fails, throw in a "<chuckles>" to indicate detached
: bemusement, then when THAT fails, announce to the entire newsgroup that
: you have just kill-filed that person.
12. Be sure to remove comments from the material you are responding to,
especially if it shows the flaws in your own logic. Never indicate when you
are snipping the material and if at all possible, carefully select the
material to omit in such a way that it actually changes the other person's
remarks.
13. If you are repeatedly pressed to defend yourself, refer to previous
Usenet postings that supposedly support your position (they do not have to
actually exist). When asked to provide references or links to those
postings, refer to rule 12 above. If the other person won't drop the issue,
or if enough different people insist you substantiate your claims, argue
that it isn't your job to educate others or to do their homework for them.
Ralf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
11 Oct 2005 07:18:32 PM |
|
|
_AnonCoward wrote:
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1h48ino.1ipo49ewsgi0gN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
:
: Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
:
: > By following these few simple rules that have been developed, tried and
: > **PROVEN** by Pastor Dave himself, you are guaranteed to win **ANY**
: > argument on Usenet. Here they are:
: >
: > 1. [...] 10. (Excellent!)
:
: 11. When all else fails, throw in a "<chuckles>" to indicate detached
: bemusement, then when THAT fails, announce to the entire newsgroup that
: you have just kill-filed that person.
12. Be sure to remove comments from the material you are responding to,
especially if it shows the flaws in your own logic. Never indicate when you
are snipping the material and if at all possible, carefully select the
material to omit in such a way that it actually changes the other person's
remarks.
13. If you are repeatedly pressed to defend yourself, refer to previous
Usenet postings that supposedly support your position (they do not have to
actually exist). When asked to provide references or links to those
postings, refer to rule 12 above. If the other person won't drop the issue,
or if enough different people insist you substantiate your claims, argue
that it isn't your job to educate others or to do their homework for them.
Ralf
I love it. Keep 'em coming! LoL!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "alexiastation" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
10 Oct 2005 09:44:17 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
By following these few simple rules that have been
developed, tried and **PROVEN** by Pastor Dave himself,
you are guaranteed to win **ANY** argument on Usenet.
Here they are:
1. Never let anyone else define the terms. Even if it
is a globally understood definition (for example, that
evolution is a change in allele frequency in a
population, or that so-called macroevolution is simply
microevolution over an extended time-period), absolutely
refuse to let anyone define it.
2. If someone asks *you* to define your terms (for
example, if you're asked to supply a definition of
so-called macroevolution), run away!
3. Demand absolute proof. Never mind that, for example,
it is religion, and not science that's in the business of
declaring eternal, unchanging, definitive and absolute
truths! Instead, demand it from science because you're
sure you remember some scientist somewhere (never say
where) who, speaking loosely, said something is a fact.
4. **NEVER**, and I mean absolutely **NEVER EVER** define
what you will accept as proof.
5. Diss every single reference anyone offers you to
support their argument. Cavalierly rule out web sites
(*especially* if it's talkorigins.org), URL's, books,
science journals, direct argument, whatever. Implicitly
demand that people use megabytes of bandwidth making
tedious arguments instead of simply using what the WWW is
designed for (convenience of URLs for one thing), and
then frustrate the poor hard-working sods by completely
ignoring their patiently typed out messages! By
absolutely rejecting every single line of argument, you
can then turn around and insist that no one offered even
evidence, let alone proof!
6. Inevitably, when you are so cowardly, stupid,
hypocritical, obstinate, brainless, stonewalling so
strenuously that you make Mount Rushmore look soft, and
shot-through with the most blatant lies, people will call
you cowardly, stupid, hypocritical, obstinate, brainless,
stonewalling so strenuously that you make Mount Rushmore
look soft, and shot-through with the most blatant lies!
Then you can attack them ad hominem style for using ad
hominem attacks against you out of their frustration that
you will not even discuss the evidence as you so freely
promised to do in your dishonest challenge!
7. Occasionally appeal to poignancy by declaring how you
have read a science magazine or two and have a couple of
old college textbooks on your shelf and that you *do
indeed* understand science at the most fundamental level,
that you are indeed earnestly seeking the truth and then
frustrate them again by *never* entering into any science
discussion over anything whatsoever!
9. Take umbrage at even the most decent, reasonable,
respectful, and polite requests for help! For instance
if someone asks you to define "kind" so that they can
provide you with evidence of transition from one "kind"
to another "kind", absolutely do not define it. Insist
that the onus is on your opponent. If they reasonably
request help in that you posit a mechanism that would
prevent one "kind" from transitioning to another "kind"
since science cannot find one, for god's sake do *NOT*
take pity on them and help them out with a scientifically
defined mechanism! Instead, become apoplectic at their
very nerve.
10. Continuously demand proof from your oponent and chide
them mercilessly for not providing it even when they have
provided 150 years' worth of it, but don't even remotely
entertain a single request from them that you provide
proof for your own position. God forbid!
Budikka
If you don't mind I would like to frame this, Rolling On the
Floor........Me thinks it is funny.......sadly though it is true
as for some on the group.........
Oh fudge, I will probably get attacked for replying to this by
the one that is the smartest here, after all I been called a
moron and idiot, a false Christian and a liar by that one that
is smartest than all the rest of us(in his little mind) and
indeed that one has never set foot in my house much less my
brain or heart, spoke to me on the phone and or #'s 1-2-4-6-9-10
above..........that is okay though I need the laugh ;) He'll
reply here, hey call me a heretic again I think I am kind of
getting used to it-oh yeah I blocked you... shucks... ;)
Beth
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog oldwetdog@yahooD0Tcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
10 Oct 2005 10:52:25 PM |
|
|
alexiastation wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
By following these few simple rules that have been
developed, tried and **PROVEN** by Pastor Dave himself,
you are guaranteed to win **ANY** argument on Usenet.
Here they are:
1. Never let anyone else define the terms. Even if it
is a globally understood definition (for example, that
evolution is a change in allele frequency in a
population, or that so-called macroevolution is simply
microevolution over an extended time-period), absolutely
refuse to let anyone define it.
2. If someone asks *you* to define your terms (for
example, if you're asked to supply a definition of
so-called macroevolution), run away!
3. Demand absolute proof. Never mind that, for example,
it is religion, and not science that's in the business of
declaring eternal, unchanging, definitive and absolute
truths! Instead, demand it from science because you're
sure you remember some scientist somewhere (never say
where) who, speaking loosely, said something is a fact.
4. **NEVER**, and I mean absolutely **NEVER EVER** define
what you will accept as proof.
5. Diss every single reference anyone offers you to
support their argument. Cavalierly rule out web sites
(*especially* if it's talkorigins.org), URL's, books,
science journals, direct argument, whatever. Implicitly
demand that people use megabytes of bandwidth making
tedious arguments instead of simply using what the WWW is
designed for (convenience of URLs for one thing), and
then frustrate the poor hard-working sods by completely
ignoring their patiently typed out messages! By
absolutely rejecting every single line of argument, you
can then turn around and insist that no one offered even
evidence, let alone proof!
6. Inevitably, when you are so cowardly, stupid,
hypocritical, obstinate, brainless, stonewalling so
strenuously that you make Mount Rushmore look soft, and
shot-through with the most blatant lies, people will call
you cowardly, stupid, hypocritical, obstinate, brainless,
stonewalling so strenuously that you make Mount Rushmore
look soft, and shot-through with the most blatant lies!
Then you can attack them ad hominem style for using ad
hominem attacks against you out of their frustration that
you will not even discuss the evidence as you so freely
promised to do in your dishonest challenge!
7. Occasionally appeal to poignancy by declaring how you
have read a science magazine or two and have a couple of
old college textbooks on your shelf and that you *do
indeed* understand science at the most fundamental level,
that you are indeed earnestly seeking the truth and then
frustrate them again by *never* entering into any science
discussion over anything whatsoever!
9. Take umbrage at even the most decent, reasonable,
respectful, and polite requests for help! For instance
if someone asks you to define "kind" so that they can
provide you with evidence of transition from one "kind"
to another "kind", absolutely do not define it. Insist
that the onus is on your opponent. If they reasonably
request help in that you posit a mechanism that would
prevent one "kind" from transitioning to another "kind"
since science cannot find one, for god's sake do *NOT*
take pity on them and help them out with a scientifically
defined mechanism! Instead, become apoplectic at their
very nerve.
10. Continuously demand proof from your oponent and chide
them mercilessly for not providing it even when they have
provided 150 years' worth of it, but don't even remotely
entertain a single request from them that you provide
proof for your own position. God forbid!
Budikka
If you don't mind I would like to frame this, Rolling On the
Floor........Me thinks it is funny.......sadly though it is true
as for some on the group.........
Oh fudge, I will probably get attacked for replying to this by
the one that is the smartest here, after all I been called a
moron and idiot, a false Christian and a liar by that one that
is smartest than all the rest of us(in his little mind) and
indeed that one has never set foot in my house much less my
brain or heart, spoke to me on the phone and or #'s 1-2-4-6-9-10
above..........that is okay though I need the laugh ;) He'll
reply here, hey call me a heretic again I think I am kind of
getting used to it-oh yeah I blocked you... shucks... ;)
Beth
Hi Beth.... yes, I liked the above tirade also... lol
after all, the 'pastor' does have a closed mind.... (a mind is a
terrible thing to waste...)
Hope you and yours are well...
owd
--
+-<[:-)>>>- oldwetdog
-----
Adversity introduces a man to himself. Anonymous
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
11 Oct 2005 12:45:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:52:25 -0700, oldwetdog
<oldwetdog@yahooD0Tcom> spake thusly:
alexiastation wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
By following these few simple rules that have been
developed, tried and **PROVEN** by Pastor Dave himself,
you are guaranteed to win **ANY** argument on Usenet.
Here they are:
1. Never let anyone else define the terms. Even if it
is a globally understood definition (for example, that
evolution is a change in allele frequency in a
population, or that so-called macroevolution is simply
microevolution over an extended time-period), absolutely
refuse to let anyone define it.
2. If someone asks *you* to define your terms (for
example, if you're asked to supply a definition of
so-called macroevolution), run away!
3. Demand absolute proof. Never mind that, for example,
it is religion, and not science that's in the business of
declaring eternal, unchanging, definitive and absolute
truths! Instead, demand it from science because you're
sure you remember some scientist somewhere (never say
where) who, speaking loosely, said something is a fact.
4. **NEVER**, and I mean absolutely **NEVER EVER** define
what you will accept as proof.
5. Diss every single reference anyone offers you to
support their argument. Cavalierly rule out web sites
(*especially* if it's talkorigins.org), URL's, books,
science journals, direct argument, whatever. Implicitly
demand that people use megabytes of bandwidth making
tedious arguments instead of simply using what the WWW is
designed for (convenience of URLs for one thing), and
then frustrate the poor hard-working sods by completely
ignoring their patiently typed out messages! By
absolutely rejecting every single line of argument, you
can then turn around and insist that no one offered even
evidence, let alone proof!
6. Inevitably, when you are so cowardly, stupid,
hypocritical, obstinate, brainless, stonewalling so
strenuously that you make Mount Rushmore look soft, and
shot-through with the most blatant lies, people will call
you cowardly, stupid, hypocritical, obstinate, brainless,
stonewalling so strenuously that you make Mount Rushmore
look soft, and shot-through with the most blatant lies!
Then you can attack them ad hominem style for using ad
hominem attacks against you out of their frustration that
you will not even discuss the evidence as you so freely
promised to do in your dishonest challenge!
7. Occasionally appeal to poignancy by declaring how you
have read a science magazine or two and have a couple of
old college textbooks on your shelf and that you *do
indeed* understand science at the most fundamental level,
that you are indeed earnestly seeking the truth and then
frustrate them again by *never* entering into any science
discussion over anything whatsoever!
9. Take umbrage at even the most decent, reasonable,
respectful, and polite requests for help! For instance
if someone asks you to define "kind" so that they can
provide you with evidence of transition from one "kind"
to another "kind", absolutely do not define it. Insist
that the onus is on your opponent. If they reasonably
request help in that you posit a mechanism that would
prevent one "kind" from transitioning to another "kind"
since science cannot find one, for god's sake do *NOT*
take pity on them and help them out with a scientifically
defined mechanism! Instead, become apoplectic at their
very nerve.
10. Continuously demand proof from your oponent and chide
them mercilessly for not providing it even when they have
provided 150 years' worth of it, but don't even remotely
entertain a single request from them that you provide
proof for your own position. God forbid!
Budikka
If you don't mind I would like to frame this, Rolling On the
Floor........Me thinks it is funny.......sadly though it is true
as for some on the group.........
Oh fudge, I will probably get attacked for replying to this by
the one that is the smartest here, after all I been called a
moron and idiot, a false Christian and a liar by that one that
is smartest than all the rest of us(in his little mind) and
indeed that one has never set foot in my house much less my
brain or heart, spoke to me on the phone and or #'s 1-2-4-6-9-10
above..........that is okay though I need the laugh ;) He'll
reply here, hey call me a heretic again I think I am kind of
getting used to it-oh yeah I blocked you... shucks... ;)
Beth
Hi Beth.... yes, I liked the above tirade also... lol
after all, the 'pastor' does have a closed mind.... (a mind is a
terrible thing to waste...)
These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.
The reality is, they could not offer any proof.
The biggest pieces of evidence they had,
was (some of them paraphrased)...
"Prove that it could not happen."
"What mechanism would stop it from happening"
"Prove God"
"Here, look at this bunch of web pages"
"Dawkins said this could have happened...
Now prove that he was wrong"
"Science doesn't prove anything"
Etc., etc..
The last one, they claim, after ridiculing you because
you don't believe it, which means that whether they
admit it or not, they consider it an absolute truth and
absolute truths require absolute proof.
After a while, I kill filed them. And I mean, after a
while. I gave them plenty of opportunity. I got tired
after a while, of their posts that tried to ridicule
me, ridicule my faith, send me to their standard
web links, etc., etc.. None of those things are proof.
You see, they're upset with me, because I won't allow
them to keep dragging me into their circular arguments
and to keep dragging me around the big loop and they're
upset, because I can tell them exactly where they're
going to go and exactly what they're going to say,
beforehand. :)
The only genetics evidence that they offered, which was
that chimps are 98% identical in code to humans. I
showed them that while they try to pretend that it's
almost exact, it's really 96% and that the 4% means
thousands upon thousands of differences, some of which
are obvious to anyone. It also doesn't mean anything
more than a common designer.
It amazes me that these evolutionists claim that it
couldn't be God, because there is so much similarity in
various parts of various creatures. Yet they wouldn't
have expected the first pickup truck to use anything
other than wheels, just because cars had wheels. :)
So why do they expect that God would have to invent
something other than a leg, to design something that
walks, just because something else has legs? That
doesn't make sense.
They also complain that Intelligent Design doesn't
offer a theory. Sure it does. They just won't admit
it. Not only this, but they claim that creationists
spend their time attacking evolution, instead of
offering a theory. So what do they do? Spend their
time attacking Intelligent Design and when they are
challenged to offer this so called "mountain of
evidence" for what they believe, their first reaction
is to demand that you prove it wrong! <chuckle>
They claim that evolution had the evidence first and
that their predictions were based on that evidence.
Not true. Darwin had no fossils to back up his claims
and he admitted it and hoped that one day they would
be found. Guess what? Evolutionists still do not have
one single chain of fossils that show, for example,
that canidae came from non-canidae. Their "theory"
is not based on evidence. It is based on bad ideas,
that still have nothing to support them.
These evolutionists don't even know that there are
six kinds of evolution (with a seventh being
formulated). They claim that I have no education and
try to talk down to everyone, claiming that others,
"just don't understand science". I'm not the one who
doesn't know that there are six kinds of evolution and
that only one has any evidence (microevolution) and
when they claim I'm lying and I prove it is true, they
insult me and run away.
They see the title "Pastor" and assume that I am
ignorant and that their little ploys will work. The
fact is, I have studied the subject (including the
various involved sciences) for years and I have reading
material on evolution, by evolutionists (not just
creationists) stacked up in my personal library as well
and the fact is, they can't make a case. "Could have",
"might have" and "this must have", are not evidence
and that is the language we constantly see in these
writings. (:.
Over the years, they have tried to separate the various
parts of evolution from each other. They won't admit
that abiogenesis (a disproved idea) is part of this
theory. That's because they're embarrassed by its
failure. The fact is, their ideas leads straight back
to abiogenesis. They claim that evolution doesn't
address the issue of God. If that is true, then why do
they spend so much time trying to ridicule Him? And
why do these evolutionists get so uptight when you
bring God into the conversation? They have an
"a priori" assumption that denies God and the greatest
names in evolution admit it.
"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31
They ask why creationist theory isn't printed. It is.
They demand to see it in "peer reviewed" journals,
etc.. What they mean, is that they demand that those
who reject the idea, who (no one can deny) control
what is and isn't printed, print the idea in these
"journals". Of course, we all know that isn't going to
happen. But assuming it did one day happen, they
would simply say that this scientist is a fool and the
fact that the other (according to them) 99% of the
scientists don't believe it, shows it to be foolish.
You see, now majority opinion equals truth to them.
If that's true, how come the atheists don't admit that
God exists, considering that the majority of people on
the planet believe in God? You see, they are self
contradictory. These oppose themselves and with
that kind of help from them, we need not say a word
about that foolish idea. :)
They demand to see scientists saying what we believe.
When you show them scientists who do indeed do that,
they claim "they aren't real scientists". So in
reality, there is nothing that you're going to show
them, that will satisfy them. They try to stack the
deck from god.
Let's take a look at the latest answer from the guy who
keeps chasing me around, claiming that he has answered
my call for proof of macroevolution and that I'm
running away, even though before I kill filed him
because he got so insulting, he was given ample
opportunity to try to prove it, but like all of them,
his arguments consisted of trying to turn the tables
and pretend that their claim equals proof and that I
have to disprove it (all the while, complaining that ID
only attacks evolution <laugh>).
This is the man you responded to (Budikka666).
Note the imagined scenarios and "could have"'
claims and the demand for me to prove that it
could not have happened and the demand for me to spend
my time coming up with definitions. This is classic
evolutionists table turning and classic "ideas that
maybe happened are proof and you're stupid if you don't
believe it" technique <laugh> ...
************************************************************************
According to Richard Dawkins in his recently published
"The Ancestor's Tale" humans and apes parted company
some 6,000,000 years ago. Evolution doesn't work in
this orderly, simplified linear fashion, but for the
sake of argument, let's distribute the 60,000,000
base pairs over the 6,000,000 years, giving us a
requirement of 10 base pairs per year to macro-evolve
from a common ancestor into either a chimpanzee or
a human in 6 million years. What is there to prevent
that? Why could that not have happened?
In order to respond to this question you will need
to define "kind" and define the mechanism which
you claim prevents one "kind" from changing into
another "kind". But of course, every time I ask you
to do that **YOU RUN AWAY**.
Since a gene contains some 100,000 base pairs on
average, changing out just one or two genes during
that time period could have accomplished it (although
that's not what happened. It was a few more genes
than that).
There's your macroevolution. Care to discuss it?
************************************************************************
Yes, the above is what he calls the proof that I'm
supposedly running away from. <chuckle> :)
Here's the link to it...
http://tinyurl.com/8fg2l
Also, it seems to me, that if they're going to prove
their claim, it should involve any typing on my part
at all. :)
Think about it. If they have the proof, then why does
it involve me proving that a "maybe" could not have
happened? Hmmmm... I mean, if I said that I have
proof that the world was created in six days, wouldn't
they demand that I display it here for all to see?
Would they accept, "Here's a maybe from this guy.
Now prove it could not have happened."?
No, of course not, yet that's what they're offering as
proof of macroevolution and then claim that it must
be true, because I'm running away from "the proof".
<chuckle>
As I said, they had ample opportunity in a thread I
started, that was a call for proof. It has nothing to
do with my beliefs, nor my comments. It was a thread
for them to provide the proof and they failed
miserably. Here is the first message in the thread, in
which I told them exactly what their answers would
consists of (and I was right)...
http://tinyurl.com/beynd
You can read the rest of the thread from there. :)
The greatest scientific philosopher of all time,
Dr. Karl Popper, said that evolution is not a law,
nor a theory and that it doesn't even rise to the
level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program.
These people are fools who deny God because
He interferes with their desire to be their own gods.
This is a negative and rebellious reaction to God.
It is a spirit of fighting God, in order to play God.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"If you will not believe,
Surely you will not be established."
- Isaiah 7:9b
.
|
|
|
| User: "VBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
11 Oct 2005 02:29:05 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pgunk1tv6ipiuipcslh479pkkg1deq8mgb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:52:25 -0700, oldwetdog
<oldwetdog@yahooD0Tcom> spake thusly:
alexiastation wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Hi Beth.... yes, I liked the above tirade also... lol
after all, the 'pastor' does have a closed mind.... (a mind is a
terrible thing to waste...)
These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.
Because that is true. We DO stand ready, and you ARE running away. You
propose a debate and when I am willing to debate the issues, you change your
mind and run away. Then, to cover your cowardice and lack of moral
fortitude, you say you have killfiled us so that you can excuse your failure
to stand up for what you claim.
As a fellow Christian, I find this behavior reprehensible. Not in wanting
to avoid the debate when you know you are up to it, that is just good sense.
But your refusal to admit this, your constant vehement posting AS IF you had
"won" every discussion, etc, is childish and not worthy of the name
Christian. Many, if not most, of your posts border on misrepresentation, if
not actual fraud.
The sad thing is not that you are a laughing-stock, there are plenty of you
on the usenet. The said thing is that you are a poor reflection of the
Christianity you assert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jude Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
11 Oct 2005 02:38:40 PM |
|
|
"VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> wrote in message
news:5oU2f.9575$oc.4733@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pgunk1tv6ipiuipcslh479pkkg1deq8mgb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:52:25 -0700, oldwetdog
<oldwetdog@yahooD0Tcom> spake thusly:
alexiastation wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Hi Beth.... yes, I liked the above tirade also... lol
after all, the 'pastor' does have a closed mind.... (a mind is a
terrible thing to waste...)
These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.
Because that is true. We DO stand ready, and you ARE running away. You
propose a debate and when I am willing to debate the issues, you change
your
mind and run away. Then, to cover your cowardice and lack of moral
fortitude, you say you have killfiled us so that you can excuse your
failure
to stand up for what you claim.
As a fellow Christian, I find this behavior reprehensible. Not in wanting
to avoid the debate when you know you are up to it, that is just good
sense.
But your refusal to admit this, your constant vehement posting AS IF you
had
"won" every discussion, etc, is childish and not worthy of the name
Christian. Many, if not most, of your posts border on misrepresentation,
if
not actual fraud.
The sad thing is not that you are a laughing-stock, there are plenty of
you
on the usenet. The said thing is that you are a poor reflection of the
Christianity you assert.
Bada bing!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
11 Oct 2005 08:53:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:29:05 GMT, "VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com>
wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pgunk1tv6ipiuipcslh479pkkg1deq8mgb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:52:25 -0700, oldwetdog
<oldwetdog@yahooD0Tcom> spake thusly:
alexiastation wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Hi Beth.... yes, I liked the above tirade also... lol
after all, the 'pastor' does have a closed mind.... (a mind is a
terrible thing to waste...)
These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.
Because that is true. We DO stand ready, and you ARE running away. You
propose a debate and when I am willing to debate the issues, you change your
mind and run away. Then, to cover your cowardice and lack of moral
fortitude, you say you have killfiled us so that you can excuse your failure
to stand up for what you claim.
As a fellow Christian, I find this behavior reprehensible. Not in wanting
to avoid the debate when you know you are up to it, that is just good sense.
But your refusal to admit this, your constant vehement posting AS IF you had
"won" every discussion, etc, is childish and not worthy of the name
Christian. Many, if not most, of your posts border on misrepresentation, if
not actual fraud.
The sad thing is not that you are a laughing-stock, there are plenty of you
on the usenet. The said thing is that you are a poor reflection of the
Christianity you assert.
And a great way to single-handedly drive even more thinking people
away from his, and your murderous 'faith'.
I say more power to Pastor Dave!
.
|
|
|
| User: "VBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
12 Oct 2005 01:51:38 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:v0rok1h5vngfslj9uv6994tfikdiscop8g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:29:05 GMT, "VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com>
wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:pgunk1tv6ipiuipcslh479pkkg1deq8mgb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:52:25 -0700, oldwetdog
<oldwetdog@yahooD0Tcom> spake thusly:
alexiastation wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Hi Beth.... yes, I liked the above tirade also... lol
after all, the 'pastor' does have a closed mind.... (a mind is a
terrible thing to waste...)
These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.
Because that is true. We DO stand ready, and you ARE running away. You
propose a debate and when I am willing to debate the issues, you change
your
mind and run away. Then, to cover your cowardice and lack of moral
fortitude, you say you have killfiled us so that you can excuse your
failure
to stand up for what you claim.
As a fellow Christian, I find this behavior reprehensible. Not in
wanting
to avoid the debate when you know you are up to it, that is just good
sense.
But your refusal to admit this, your constant vehement posting AS IF you
had
"won" every discussion, etc, is childish and not worthy of the name
Christian. Many, if not most, of your posts border on misrepresentation,
if
not actual fraud.
The sad thing is not that you are a laughing-stock, there are plenty of
you
on the usenet. The said thing is that you are a poor reflection of the
Christianity you assert.
And a great way to single-handedly drive even more thinking people
away from his, and your murderous 'faith'.
I say more power to Pastor Dave!
See, there, Davey, you even have atheists on your side now! :0)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
11 Oct 2005 07:16:59 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.
That's exactly what you *are* doing. In this very thread which
presents scientific evidence - not a web page, not a URL, not a
citation, but the text of an argument right here in the message, you
have run away from addressing the argument THREE TIMES now. And you've
done the same thing in every other thread where I've posted evidence.
The reality is, they could not offer any proof.
Right here in this thread is EXAMPLE FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE, you
pathetic liar.
And how pathetic that I specifically asked you in my very first
response on September 11th in your own macroevolution thread what you
would accept as proof so I could provide it, and **YOU EVEN RAN AWAY
FROM THAT QUESTION**.
I asked you to define macroevolution so I would know what "kind" of
evidence to provide, and **YOU EVEN RAN AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION**!
The biggest pieces of evidence they had,
Is 150 years of peer-reviewed evidence in refereed science journals,
published by people from all over the world, OF ALL RELIGIOUS FAITHS.
Address *that* you coward, becuase every time I mention that to you,
**YOU RUN AWAY**.
"Prove that it could not happen."
That comment has never been made by me. However, **AFTER I HAVE
PRESENTED THE SCIENCE OR THE MATH** 543 times, I've asked you to enter
into in the dicussion you promised, invited you to explain why I am
wrong, **AND EVERY SINGLE TIME - 543 TIMES TO BE EXACT - YOU HAVE RUN
AWAY**!
"What mechanism would stop it from happening"
This was asked by me to invite you into the discussion you promised on
August 31st, but have run away from ever since. The discussion was:
since you insist that there are distinct "kinds" (which you have
repeatedly run away from scientifically defining - as has every other
creationist) which cannot change from one to another, then there must
be a mechanism which prevents it. What is that mechanism?
You swore you could discuss the science in your original macroevolution
challenge on August 31st. I'm still waiting, 543 times later, on you
discussing even one example I've presented, on you defining this "kind"
that youc laim cannot change into another "kind" and on you defining,
scientifically, the mechanism which prevents this "kind" of evolution.
You are a hypocrite to stand there and claim we cannot produce evidence
when we have repeatedly presented it and repeatedly challenged you to
refute it only to see you run away and then claim we haven't presented
evidence. What "kind" of a Christian behaves that way?
"Prove God"
Thanks for admitting you cannot, but we already knew this and you've
already admitted it repeatedly. Don't strain yourself.
Yes, this was me again, but the truth is that you're the one claiming
absolute certitude that there is a god, and **LYING** that it is the
scientists claiming the same thing about evolution.
I took **YOUR EXACT MACROEVOLUTION CHALLENGE**, changed the word
"macroevolution" for "god" and threw **YOUR CHALLENGE** back at you -
and look at how you whine about it! If it's a ridiculous challenge,
then so was yours on macroevolution.
But let's look deeper at this, shall we? In response to *your*
challenge, I gave you 543 examples. it doesn;t matter if they are good
ones or not at this point, but there were 543 with many mroe to come.
SSo I took uop your challenge and repsodned to it giving you rpecisely
what youa sked for. **YOU** were the one who ran from it.
Now let's look at *my* challenge, shall we? Did you offer even **ONE**
example in reSPnse? No! **YOU RAN AWAY**!
So we have two pritine examples of challenges here, and how each of us
responds. In both cases, i stood and was prepared to enter into a
serious discussion with you. In both cases, YOU RAN AWAY! Don't whine
about it now, you coward.
"Here, look at this bunch of web pages"
What do you recommend, Pastor Dave? The unchristian act of wasting
bandwidth by reproducing something that's already produced? URLs are
what the WWW is all about you moron. Are you advocating that people
breach copyright by reproducing the exact text that's already out
there? Isn't that a little unchristian?
I personally already refered you to the actual science papers,
including specifically listing a whole bunch of them. Did you respond
to that? Nope. Once again, **YOU RAN AWAY**.
"Dawkins said this could have happened...
Now prove that he was wrong"
Never said that. And it's pretty hypocritcal that you decry the
posting of URLs. You also decry the referencing of books. You also
won't countenance the original science papers published in
peer-reviewed magazines. And as this thread procves. you won;t address
direct argument.
JUST HOW DO YOU WANT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, PASTOR DAVE - IN MIME?
"Science doesn't prove anything"
You're lying. What was actually said was that science doesn't claim
absolute, eternal, irrefutable certitude. That's what religion claims.
The last one, they claim, after ridiculing you because
you don't believe it, which means that whether they
admit it or not, they consider it an absolute truth and
absolute truths require absolute proof.
This from the coward who couldn't even produce **ONE ARGUMENT** in
response to my parallel change that (while we're producing evidence of
macroevolution **FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE TIMES**, Pastor Dave
couldn't even make one argument for his god. If absolute truths
require absolute proof, Pastor Dave has just proven there is no god!
After a while, I kill filed them. And I mean, after a
while. I gave them plenty of opportunity.
You never gave me even one opportunity. I first responded to you on
September 11th, and since that time in that original thread of yours
and in the subsequent FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE EXAMPLES** you have
88NEVER ONCE** entered into the discussion you promised. You're a
liar, a coward, and a hypocrite, yet here I am still holding out my
hand to you for a discussion of the evidence.
Now who is the most christian, Pastor Dave, you, the Christian, or me,
the atheist?
I got tired
after a while,
I guarantee you that the atheists are more tired of your cowardice,
lies, and hypocrisy than you could ever become of atheists.
of their posts that tried to ridicule
me, ridicule my faith, send me to their standard
web links, etc., etc.. None of those things are proof.
The ridicule came after you promised a discussion - a scientific
discussion of the evidence, and then insulted everyone who presented
it, or simply ran away from it. If you had refuted it, or tried to, if
you had even discussed the science or made some sort of pretence that
you even understood it, which you clearly do not, then you would have
got what you requested. But cowardice and lies deserves precisely what
you got.
You see, they're upset with me, because I won't allow
them to keep dragging me into their circular arguments
The circular argument that you demand proof, and then when you get the
evidence, you ignore it or insist it isn't proof without a shred of
refutation or science to support your claim, and then claim no one
offered proof?
Or is it the circular argument that you demand proof, and then dismiss
wihtout any support, the posting of URLs, the referencing of books, the
referencing of original science papers published in peer-reviewed
magazines, and direct argument?
You;re a patheitc little hypocrite and your lies have finally nailed
your ***** to the wall, you coward.
and to keep dragging me around the big loop and they're
upset, because I can tell them exactly where they're
going to go and exactly what they're going to say,
beforehand. :)
The only genetics evidence that they offered, which was
that chimps are 98% identical in code to humans. I
showed them that while they try to pretend that it's
almost exact, it's really 96%I specified in my example #1 (http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc) that it was 96%
overall and >98% in terms of the genes which specify proteins. Clearly
if you do not understand this distinction, you do not understand the
science which makes it, and your ignorance in this case is your
downfall.
This means that when we take into account junk DNA, most of which codes
for nothing and is just the detritus of evolution, there is *more*
difference than when we look only at genes that code for the proteins
which build and maintain our bodies.
and that the 4% means
thousands upon thousands of differences,
4% of the genome in this case is only 120,000,000 base pairs, and as I
just pointed out, this is irrelevant because it is junk. The
difference in working genes is only 1% or 2%. Since we have ~25,000
genes, this is at most 500 genes out of 25,000. That means chimpanzees
have ~250 genes we do not have and we have ~250 they do not. We
diverged from chimpanzees some 5 - 7 millon years ago, which means in,
say, 5 million years, we had to acquire or change 250 genes. This
works out to be one new gene every 20,000 years - a gene that was
duplicated and then changed, or simply changed.
What is there to prevent that? Please give your scientific answer and
let's discuss it. Science has already shown it can happen and that it
does happen, therefore it is up to you to show why it did not. Science
doesn't know of anything that could prevent it.
Scientists have found genes that have changed in many genomes. There
are many mechanisms which can do this and which do do this (humans and
chimpanzees exhibit this, for example, in our blood grouping). Anyone
who cares to scientifically demonstrate such a mechanism would become
more famous than Darwin and fabulously wealthy. Any takers?
some of which
are obvious to anyone. It also doesn't mean anything
more than a common designer.
The chimpanzee and the human genome contain the same genetic mistakes:
http://tinyurl.com/bb9gf
Is this the work of an intelligent and perfect designer? That he
screwed up the chimpanzee genome and then made exactly the same mistake
in an (according to the creationists) completely unrelated organism?
It amazes me that these evolutionists claim that it
couldn't be God, because there is so much similarity in
various parts of various creatures.
You need to demonstrate this god's existence before you can claim it is
a god who did this. I foresaw you making this claim and specifically
started a thread to short-circuit it:
http://tinyurl.com/bcc7k
You could have taken up that challenge but once again, **YOU RAN
AWAY**. Now here you are asserting that a mechanism created species
and you cannot support your claim. I asked you for proof and **YOU RAN
AWAY**. In other words, you are a colossal hypocrite because you decry
evolution claiming it offers no evidence, whereas it actually has 150
years of accumulated evidence, and then assert your own explanation,
which literally has no scientific evidence, and run away from a
discussion you were offered on this very topic.
Never once did you address my request. I have addressed yours
repeatedly. Never once did you respond to my messages. I've responed
to yours repeatedly and given you exactly what you asked for. So who
is the bigger sinner here, Pastor dave? Who is making the most effort
to communicate and discuss? Who is offering the evidence and who
isn't? Who is going the extra mile, giving you his shirt, turnign the
other cheek and trying yet again? Which of us is doing this, Pastor
Dave? Which of us is the most christian here, the atheist or the
believer?
So why do they expect that God would have to invent
something other than a leg, to design something that
walks, just because something else has legs? That
doesn't make sense.
Where can you show me an exmaple of a designer creating an aircraft
wing to dig trenches? Do humans do this, or do they specifically
create a unque design for the job which has nothing whatsoever to do
with aircraft?
Why, then, did your designer make a mole's forelimbs out of precisely
the same materials and very nearly precisely the same design as a
bird's wing? A bat's wing? A whale flipper? A horse's hoof? A human
hand?
This is not design. It's evolution using one system, largely
unchanged, for something entirely different. Designers do not do that.
Designers create from scratch and design for the specific job at hand.
They do not take an aircraft wing and insist it was designed to
excavate earth with.
They also complain that Intelligent Design doesn't
offer a theory. Sure it does.
Please provide a reference to the standard refereed science journal
where this theory is published and supported. This is what you demand
(and get) from evolutionists. It would be hypocritical for you to fail
to offer it in return, now, wouldn't it?
They just won't admit it.
You can't admit to what doesn't exist. Unless you're a creationist
liar, that is.
Not only this, but they claim that creationists
spend their time attacking evolution, instead of
offering a theory.
That's precisely what they do. If this is wrong, then prove me wrong
by citing science papers published in peer-reviewed science journals,
which offer **POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATION**.
So what do they do? Spend their
time attacking Intelligent Design and when they are
challenged to offer this so called "mountain of
evidence" for what they believe, their first reaction
is to demand that you prove it wrong! <chuckle>
The mountain of evidence, as you have been tediously and repeatedly
told, is in the published science journals the world over, where
peer-reviewed papers are published by people of all religions and all
nationalities. Here are some of them, courtesy of Kathleen Hunt, whose
name (with these references) has been passed on to you many times:
Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper
Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301.
Berta, A. 1994. What is a whale? Science 263:180-181.
Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower
Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770
Chaline, J. 1983. Modalites, Rythmes, Mecanismes de L'Evolution
Biologique: Gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues? Editions du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a European
Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia). Paleobiology
12:203-216.
Chevret, P., C. Denys, J.J. Jaeger, J. Michaux, and F. Catzeflis. 1993.
Molecular and paleontological aspects of the tempo and mode of
evolution in Otomys (Otomyinae: Muridae: Mammalia). Biochem. Syst.
Ecol. 21(1):123-131.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the
earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known
tetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69.
Colbert, E.H. & M. Morales. 1991. Evolution Of The Vertebrates: A
History Of The Backboned Animals Through Time. Wiley-Liss, New York.
Daeschler, E.B., N.H. Shubin, K.S. Thomson, W.W. Amaral. 1994. A
Devonian tetrapod from North America. Science 265:639-642.
Edwards, J.L. 1989. Two perspectives on the evolution of the tetrapod
limb. Am. Zool. 29:235-254.
Fahlbusch, V. 1983. Makroevolution. Punktualismus. Ein
Diskussionsbeitrag am Beispiel miozaner Eomyiden (Mammalia, Rodentia).
Palaont. Z. 57:213-230.
Fischman, J. 1993. Paleontologists examine old bones and new
interpretations. Science 262: 845-846.
Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution
at the species level in early Tertiary mammals. Am. J. Sci. 276:1-28.
Gingerich, P.D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals.
Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8:407-424.
Gingerich, P.D. 1982. Time resolution in mammalian evolution: Sampling,
lineages, and faunal turnover. Third North Am. Paleont. Conv., Proc.,
1:205-210.
Gingerich, P.D. 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil
record. J. Geological Education 31:140-144.
Gingerich, P.D. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends,
and transitions. Paleobiology 11(1):27-41.
Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, & E.L. Simons. 1990. Hind limb of Eocene
Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156.
Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene African
Suidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128.
Hopson, J.A. 1991. Convergence in mammals, tritheledonts, and
tridylodonts. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(suppl. to 3):36A [abstract]
Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine
transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature
358:59-61.
Hurzeler, J. 1962. Kann die biologische Evolution, wie sie sich in der
Vergangengeit abgespielt hat, exakt erfasst werden? Stud. Kath. Akad.
Bayern. 16:15-36.
Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River
Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis
(Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486.
Kurten, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus
(Phipps). Acta Zoologica Fennica 108:1-26.
Laurin, M. 1991. The osteology of a Lower Permian eosuchian from Texas
and a review of diapsid phylogeny. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 101:59-95.
Lee, M.S.Y. 1993. The origin of the turtle bodyplan: bridging a famous
morphological gap. Science 261:1716-1720.
Lucas, S.G., and Z. Lou. 1993. Adelobasileus from the upper Triassic of
west Texas: the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 13(3):309-334.
Lundelius, E.L., T. Downs, E.H. Lindsay, H.A. Semken., R.J. Zakrzewski,
C.S. Churcher, C.R. Harington, G.E. Schultz, and S.D. Webb. 1987. The
North American Quaternary sequence. In: Cenozoic Mammals of North
America - Geochronology and Biostratigraphy (ed. M.O. Woodburne).
University of California Press, Berkeley.
MacFadden, B.J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution in
fossil horses: Hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North
America. Paleobiology 11:245-257.
MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: a
current perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158.
MacFadden, B.J., & R.C. Hubbert. 1988. Explosive speciation at the base
of the adaptive radiation of Miocene grazing horses. Nature
336:466-468. (An interesting summary of the merychippine radiation. Has
a nice horse tree, too. MacFadden's horse tree is used by almost
everyone these days.)
MacFadden, B.J., J.D. Bryant, and P.A. Mueller. 1991. Sr-isotopic,
paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic evidence of horse evolution:
evidence from the Miocene of Florida. Geology 19:242-245. [This is an
interesting example of the variety of dating methods paleontologists
use to date their finds. MacFadden et al. dated the Parahippus -->
Merychippus transition at a Florida site with paleomagnetic data and
Sr/Sr dates, and also by cross-correlation to other sites dated with
Sr/Sr, K/Ar, Ar/Ar, zircon fission-track, and paleomagnetic dating
methods. All the dates were consistent at roughly 16 Ma.]
Maglio, V.J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans. Am.
Phil. Soc., New Ser. 63:1-149.
Milner, A.R., and S.E. Evans. 1991. The Upper Jurassic diapsid
Lisboasaurus estesi -- a maniraptoran theropod. Paleontology
34:503-513.
Prothero, D.R., & R.M. Schoch, eds. 1989. The Evolution of
Perissodactyls. Clarendon Press, New York.
Rayner, M.J. 1989. Vertebrate flight and the origins of flying
vertebrates. Pp. 188-217 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K.
Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1991. Owenetta and the origin of the turtles.
Nature 349: 324-326.
Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1993. The origin of turtles. J. Vert. Paleont.
13 (suppl. 3):46 [abstract]
Rensberger, J.M. 1981. Evolution in a late Oligocene-early Miocene
succession of meniscomyine rodents in the Deep River Formation,
Montana. J. Vert. Paleont. 1(2): 185-209.
Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the
generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252.
Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J. Vert.
Paleont. 8(3): 241-264.
Rougier, G.W., J.R. Wible, and J.A. Hopson. 1992. Reconstruction of the
cranial vessels in the early Cretaceous mammal Vincelestes
neuquenianus: implications for the evolution of the mammalian cranial
vascular system. J. Vert. Paleont. 12(2):188-216.
Sanz, J.L., Bonaparte, J.F., and A. Lacassa. 1988. Unusual Early
Cretaceous birds from Spain. Nature 331:433-435.
Sanz, J.L and Bonaparte, J.F. 1992. A new order of birds (Class Aves)
from the lower Cretaceous of Spain. in K.E.Campbell (ed.) Papers in
Avian Paleontology. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
Science Series No.36
Sereno, P.C. and Rao, C. 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and
perching: new evidence from the lower Cretaceous of China. Science
vol.255, pp.845-848.
Shubin, N.H., A.W. Crompton, H.-D. Sues, P.E. Olsen. 1991. New fossil
evidence on the sister-group of mammals and early Mesozoic faunal
distribution. Science 251:1063-1065.
Szalay, F.S., M.J. Novacek, and M.C. McKenna. 1993. Mammal Phylogeny,
vols 1 & 2. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Thewissen, J.G.M., S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif. 1993. Fossil evidence for
the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science
263:210-212.
Wellnhofer, P. 1993. Das siebte Exemplar von Archaeopteryx aus den
Solnhofener Schichten. Archaeopteryx vol.11, pp. 1-47.
Werdelin, L, and N Solounias. 1991. The Hyaenidae: taxonomy,
systematics, and evolution. Fossils and Strata 30 (a monograph).
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
White, T.D., G. Suwa, and B. Asfaq. 1994. Australopithecus ramidus, a
new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopida. Nature 371:306-
312.
Wible, J.R. 1991. Origin of Mammalia: the craniodental evidence
reexamined. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(1):1-28.
Wood, B.A. 1994. The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371:280-281.
They claim that evolution had the evidence first and
that their predictions were based on that evidence.
Not true. Darwin had no fossils to back up his claims
This is a lie:
http://tinyurl.com/dwfs6
He had many fossils, but since his theory was not dependent upon
fossils, your comment is irrelevant. However, it did mean that Darwin
made a de facto prediction that fossils would be found to support his
theory, and indeed they have been - tons of them.
and he admitted it and hoped that one day they would
be found. Guess what? Evolutionists still do not have
one single chain of fossils that show, for example,
that canidae came from non-canidae.
Lie.
http://canidae.ca/EVOLUTIO.HTM
http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/pub/grd2/gsa15.htm
Their "theory" is not based on evidence.
Lie. The modern synthesis is based on 150 years of evidence published
in science journals, none of which has been refuted by creationists in
science journals, nor has it been better explained in science journals
with some other theory.
It is based on bad ideas,
that still have nothing to support them.
And what science degree do you have, Pastor Dave, that qualifies you to
arrogantly pontificate on the topic? Allow me to answer for you: None.
Okay, so what science papers published in the standard refereed science
journals can you point to that supports this assertion? Allow me to
answer for you: None.
These evolutionists don't even know that there are
six kinds of evolution (with a seventh being
formulated).
Did anyone laugh as hard as i did when I read this? Pastor Dave has
zero science qualifcations, yet he arrogantly thinks that he, and not
the evolutionists, is eminently qualified to define evolution?
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a given population.
**THAT'S IT**. This change leads to all kinds of changes in organisms
as the evidence demonstrates, including (when sufficient genetic change
is accumulated) so-called macroevolution, as the science of genetics
demonstrates adequately.
They claim that I have no education and
try to talk down to everyone,
I'll concede that you've provided adequate evidence to prove that.
claiming that others,
"just don't understand science". I'm not the one who
doesn't know that there are six kinds of evolution and
that only one has any evidence (microevolution) and
when they claim I'm lying and I prove it is true, they
insult me and run away.
You make this claim but fail to support it with definitions of what
these "six kinds" are, and what science supports your claim. In other
words, it's another lie. You cannot even scientifically define what a
created "kind" is or what mechanism prevents one from changing into
another.
They see the title "Pastor" and assume that I am ignorant
That has nothing to do with your handle. It has to do with you totally
lacking intellectual integrity. It has to do with your being
repeatedly told where the evidence is, and then you denying that 150
years of published science papers even exists. It has to do with you
dishonestly trying to conflate evolution with atheism. It has to do
with your being repeatedly caught in lies, with you making assertions
you cannot support, with you making idiotic challenges, and when
(despite your assine rules) your challenge is met, it has to do with
you running away from the very evidence you undertook to discuss, and
it has to do with your not having the intellectual integrity to
concede.
and that their little ploys will work. The
fact is, I have studied the subject (including the
various involved sciences) for years and I have reading
material on evolution, by evolutionists (not just
creationists) stacked up in my personal library as well
and the fact is, they can't make a case.
Another unsupported assertion. In other words, another lie. Where is
the science to back your claim? Do you seriously think you can
overturn 150 years of published science with your say so? Are you god
almighty that you say "Let there be no evolution" and it magically all
disappears? Clearly not.
In all of what you said in the paragraph above, never once did you
state you have a degree in one of the sciences that would give you a
rational voice on this subject. Never once did you say you had read a
science paper as published in a refereed science journal. Never once
did you try to claim that creation has been established by 150 years of
creation "science" evidence published in science journals. Never once
did you claim that evolution has been overthrown by papers giving
positive evidence against it in science journals. Never once did you
claim a "theory of creation" has been established, supported by
science. In other words, far from supporting your position, you have
completely undermined it.
"Could have",
"might have" and "this must have", are not evidence
and that is the language we constantly see in these
writings. (:.
Nope, that's what religion claims. And religion literally has not a
shred of science to support there having been a god, let alone this god
doing anything. But this has nothing to do with the evidence for
evolution.
The published science papers are where the science is reported, not
textbooks and magazines.
Over the years, they have tried to separate the various
parts of evolution from each other.
There is no separation, and you cannot claim there is and support it
with science. Evolution takes place at the level of the genome, by
mutation and (among other things) natural selection. This has been
told to you repeatedly. never once have you refuted it or even tried
to. Never once have you offered science to support your claims.
They won't admit that abiogenesis
(a disproved idea) is part of this theory.
Abiogenesis is a separate science, which is why it is called
abiogenesis and not "pre-evolution". Evolution deals only with the
diversity and distribution of life **AFTER IT AROSE REGARDLESS OF HOW
IT AROSE**.
Even if abiogenesis was shown to be total trash, it would not affect
one shred of the evidence for evolution, which stands entirely
independent of how the first life arose. Having said that, abiogenesis
is supported by all available evidence. Read "Vital Dust" by Nobel
laureate Christian de Duve before you pontificate about yet another
science of which you know nothing.
That's because they're embarrassed by its
failure. The fact is, their ideas leads straight back
to abiogenesis. They claim that evolution doesn't
address the issue of God.
Of course it doesn't. Science deals with the natural universe. It is
not designed nor equipped to deal with the supernatural. Besides, your
god's non-existence has been demonstrated by me personally over 300
times with as many more items still to come:
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 66-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 70-78 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 79-90 at: http://tinyurl.com/6aa8l
Parts 91-99 at: http://tinyurl.com/6xnhh
Parts 100-119 at: http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
Parts 120-139 at: http://tinyurl.com/bp8za
Parts 140-155 at: http://tinyurl.com/72vlr
Parts 156-170 at: http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb
Parts 171-174 at: http://tinyurl.com/8jcja
Parts 175-189 at: http://tinyurl.com/cuvxb
Parts 190-199 at: http://tinyurl.com/9uo6f
Parts 200-219 at: http://tinyurl.com/8tsrg
Parts 220-235 at: http://tinyurl.com/a9rc2
Parts 236-245 at: http://tinyurl.com/b9of7
Parts 246-254 at: http://tinyurl.com/cz9yq
Parts 255-280 at: http://tinyurl.com/aze8x
Parts 281-299 at: http://tinyurl.com/7dn3s
Parts 300-325 at: http://tinyurl.com/bj4mu
If that is true, then why do
they spend so much time trying to ridicule Him?
Which science papers published in refereed science journals have
ridiculed any god? You cannot point to even one. In other words, you
are lying.
Which science textbooks have ridiculed any god? You cannot even point
to one. Another one of your pathetic little lies proven.
And
why do these evolutionists get so uptight when you
bring God into the conversation?
Because you cannot scientifically support a single claim you make about
creation, and science simply does not address religion.
They have an
"a priori" assumption that denies God and the greatest
names in evolution admit it.
Lie. Evolution could still have occurred even if god created the first
cell. For all you know, your god could have *designed* evolution to
occur after creating the first cell, or could have built evolution into
his plan from the creation of the universe. Prove me wrong.
How embarrassing for you that you are in the position of limiting what
your god can do, or worse, in the blasphemous position of dictating
what your god can do.
They ask why creationist theory isn't printed. It is.
Then name the science journal where the evidence is published. Name
the science journal where the scientifically supported "theory of
creation" was first revealed. You cannot, can you, because this is
another lie.
They demand to see it in "peer reviewed" journals,
etc.. What they mean, is that they demand that those
who reject the idea, who (no one can deny) control
what is and isn't printed, print the idea in these
"journals".
Lie. It was Bible-beleiving Christians who were the first people
digging up evidence and publishing papers in these journals. They
could have made a case for a creator-god at any time in the last 150
years in those same journals. They didn't because there is no
scientific evdience to support your claims. If there were, it would
have been published.
Of course, we all know that isn't going to
happen. But assuming it did one day happen, they
would simply say that this scientist is a fool and the
fact that the other (according to them) 99% of the
scientists don't believe it, shows it to be foolish.
Lie. If you have the science to support your assertions, no one can
pretend it is foolish. That's the virtue of science. It has nothing
to do with opinion. It has nothing to do with majority. If it did,
evolution would never have become established in the first place since
when Darwin published his book, "On the Origin...", the majority of
scientists were creationists. A huge number of them still are
believers.
Many people of faith publish science papers. The simple fact is that
if you have the scientific evidence to back you up, you can claim
whatever you want. If the evidence is there, if the evidence holds up
under scrutiny, you can publish whatever theory you want in those
journals, as Einstein proved just 100 years ago.
You see, now majority opinion equals truth to them.
Lie. If you class the majority opinion as the weight of scientific
support, then yes, the weight of evidence carries the day, but it has
nothing whatsoever to do with belief.
If that's true, how come the atheists don't admit that
God exists, considering that the majority of people on
the planet believe in God?
Precisely because what you're saying is a lie. It has nothing to do
with belief, or majority opinion, it has to do with what the evidence
supports. Duhh! You just proved yourself wrong - again! LoL! That's
why you're called Disaster Dave! Every claim you make is a disaster -
for you.
You see, they are self contradictory.
Nope. You are, as I just proved.
They demand to see scientists saying what we believe.
When you show them scientists who do indeed do that,
they claim "they aren't real scientists".
It has nothing to do with belief or with what scientists think. It has
to do with whether or not you can support your assertion with evidence
- with scientific evidence. It really is that simple. Evolutionists
can, creationists cannot. For you to make idiotic statements like this
and then claim you understand science is merely to admit to yet another
lie!
So in reality,
Like you would know about that in your closed little world where
evidence is defined as what *you* want to blindly believe, not what
actually is.
there is nothing that you're going to show
them, that will satisfy them.
No, that applies to you, as I've proven repeatedly.
They try to stack the deck from god.
God has nothing to do with it. What you are ironically claiming here
is that your god is either non-existent or so weak that he cannot
supply evidence to show he created directly. That's pretty pathetic.
Let's take a look at the latest answer from the guy who
keeps chasing me around, claiming that he has answered
my call for proof of macroevolution and that I'm
running away, even though before I kill filed him
Out of fear. If you could refute the evidence scientifically, if you
could even discuss it scientifically, you would have directly addressed
me from my first message on September 11th on this topic, but **YOU
HAVE RUN AWAY FROM EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE I HAVE POSTED, as your message
right here proves. This message was not addressed to me at all.
**WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF PASTOR DAVE? THAT YOU ARE WRONG**?
because he got so insulting, he was given ample
opportunity to try to prove it
You did not give me even one opportunity. If you go back and look at
that thread, you ignored every single message I posted, which is why I
started posting them in separate threads and started insulting you for
your lies (that you would discuss it), for your cowardice (you ran away
from the evidence) and your hypocrisy (you couldn't even support your
position in a duplicate thread I created where the tables were turned
on you).
but like all of them,
his arguments consisted of trying to turn the tables
and pretend that their claim equals proof and that I
have to disprove it (all the while, complaining that ID
only attacks evolution <laugh>).
This is a lie. I supplied evidence directly in that thread - **AND YOU
DID NOT RESPOND TO EVEN ONE SINGLE MESSAGE OF MINE**.
I got insulting when you earned it by your cowardice, lies, and
hypocrisy. Do you seriously think you are not a walking insult to
science?
My message to you on Septmber 11th in your macroevolution thread was
polite. Go back and look at it, everyone, and see for yourself who is
telling the truth:
http://tinyurl.com/87wpm
This was after all the previous disrespect and insults you had aimed at
me personally in other threads. Here are my very first two paragraphs
ever posted in that thread:
"I will compeltely answer all of your questions when you have
clarified
your position, but until and unless you do this, not even a god can
help you.
"Unfortunately, every single time I've requested that you do this,
**YOU
RUN AWAY**. Is it going to be any different this time? Is there going
to be a dialog, or are you going to stubbornly demand answers without
entering into a dialog?"
Is that disrespectful? No, it refers back to the previous history I
have had with you, but **despite that history* I was still willing to
take a christian tack with you and try to help you if you would help
me. Now where was the Christianity in your reponse - a response where
you would not even talk to me, let alone help me, where, instead, you
were insulting, abusive, and dismissive of everyone who posted anything
supportive of evolution?
The very existence of your thread was an abuse and an insult, given how
many times people have tried to help you in the past on this very
topic.
I posted several other messages giving the evidence, *despite your
abusive attitude* and you ignored all of them. *That's* when I started
posting them in separate threads to highlight how pathetic a little
coward, hypocrite and liar you are. Did you turn the other cheek? Did
you go the extra mile? Did you give me your shirt? Did you do unto me
as you would be done by? The answer is no in every case. Thanks for
proving you are either not a Christian or that you are a hypocrite.
Which is it, Pastor Dave?
All I asked from you was a couple of simple definitions, and before I
even asked for these, I said I would provide the evidence. **YOU RAN
AWAY**!!! It really is that simple. Why didn't you take that one step
to a dialog by giving me a definition that you would accept of
"macroevolution", or by telling me what evidence you would accept? Why
couldn't you, a purported Christian, do even that little to help me
help you?
According to Richard Dawkins in his recently published
"The Ancestor's Tale" humans and apes parted company
some 6,000,000 years ago. Evolution doesn't work in
this orderly, simplified linear fashion, but for the
sake of argument, let's distribute the 60,000,000
base pairs over the 6,000,000 years, giving us a
requirement of 10 base pairs per year to macroevolve
from a common ancestor into either a chimpanzee or
a human in 6 million years. What is there to prevent
that? Why could that not have happened?
This book gives abundant evidence of "macroevolution" from the first
cell to humans. Yet you dimissed it without even reading it, and you
did not give the scientific discussion you promised. This was not a
web site, not a circular argument, it did not refer you to talkorigins
(although why you're so terrified of that web site is beyond me).
Instead, it was a referenced book written by a leading supporter of
evolution. I gave you two eamples like this, and both provided
precisely what you asked for and you ran away from both of them.
In order to respond to this question you will need
to define "kind" and define the mechanism which
you claim prevents one "kind" from changing into
another "kind". But of course, every time I ask you
to do that **YOU RUN AWAY**.
You ran away from this. If there are created kinds, that have never
evolved, you ought to be able to scientifically define what they are,
but not one creationist on the planet has ever been able to do this.
In fact, I know of at least one leading creation web site which insists
that you avoid trying to define "kind" like the plague. Why is that?
Likewise, if there is a barrier which prevents one "kind" from changing
into another "kind" (macroevoltuion if you will) it ought to be the
easiest thing to demonstrate, yet not one single creationist on the
planet can do this. Why is that?
So without these definitions, you have no argument Pastor Dave, because
scientists have shown that genomes can change. It is, therefore,
incumbent upon those who support creation to demonstrate that this
change ends at the "kind" barrier.
And furthermore, without your definition of what a "kind" is, how are
evolutionists supposed to demosntrate that the "kind" barrier has
indeed been crossed by evolution to your satisfaction?
Since a gene contains some 100,000 base pairs on
average, changing out just one or two genes during
that time period could have accomplished it (although
that's not what happened. It was a few more genes
than that).
There's your macroevolution. Care to discuss it?
Yes, the above is what he calls the proof that I'm
supposedly running away from. <chuckle> :)
And you could have supported your assertion if you had shown why it was
not evidence, but once again, instead of giving the scientific
discussion you promised, you insultingly dismissed it. Worse, you
*never even addressed it*. Instead, you seem to think you can dimiss
scientific evidence by fiat, as though you are god almighty. Well,
you're not.
Where is the discussion you promised to anyone who would supply
evidence? What happened to your offer to discuss the science with
anyone who came prepared to do so? I am ready. I am still ready. I
am still holding out my hand to you. Are you going to run away even
now?
Also, it seems to me, that if they're going to prove
their claim, it should involve any typing on my part
at all. :)
So a discussion between us by your definition involves only me doing
anything? How thoroughly peculiar. I guess you deifnition of a
dicussion is as idotic as your non-existent defintiion of
macroevoltuion and of "kind".
Think about it. If they have the proof, then why does
it involve me proving that a "maybe" could not have
happened? Hmmmm... I mean, if I said that I have
proof that the world was created in six days, wouldn't
they demand that I display it here for all to see?
This is precisely what you claim and you have run away from every
challenge to provide such evidence. I showed you that it was possible
even just looking at the genome, which is where evolution takes place.
What should have ensued, if you were honest and had integrity, is the
discussion you promised. You should have tried to refute what I said,
supporting your argument with better math or with science, and then a
discussion would have ensued. But you ran away.
As I said, they had ample opportunity in a thread I
started, that was a call for proof. It has nothing to
do with my beliefs, nor my comments. It was a thread
for them to provide the proof and they failed
miserably. Here is the first message in the thread, in
which I told them exactly what their answers would
consists of (and I was right)...
http://tinyurl.com/beynd
You can read the rest of the thread from there. :)
My response was to assert that I would give the evidence **IF YOU WOULD
DEFINE WHAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT**. You ran away. I nevertheless went
ahead and supplied evidence in that very thread. I gave actual
examples, not circular arguments or references to web sites. You ran
away.
These people are fools who deny God
Another insult from you, Pastor Dave, you who whines about insults from
others. I guess you're not big on turning the other cheek and doing
unto others as you would be done by, huh?. Well you ahve jsut given
proof that you're a hypocrite.
because
He interferes with their desire to be their own gods.
The one who wants to be his own god is the one who deludededly thinks
he can dismiss evolution by fiat. Who arrogantly thinks he, a
non-scientist, knows better than the experts and who thinks he can
establish truth by asserting, unsupported, his opinion. If there is a
god, you have a serious reckoning coming to you.
This is a negative and rebellious reaction to God.
It is a spirit of fighting God, in order to play God.
Demonstrate that there is a god and we'll listen to you. Meet *my*
challenge Now the onus is on you to provide proof. You can't, can
you? Instead you have only provided more proof that you're a
hypocrite, demanding evidence from others when you cannot provide a
shred of it either for your own position or to refute the
evolutionists.
The fact is that the examples I gave you - the mouse genome, the
chimpanzee genome (included above) and others prove you wrong. Neither
of these refers you to a web site. It provides a scientific argument
directly in the thread which isn't referent to anything. Here's
another that I posted:
Parthenogenesis proves you are wrong, even using your own criteria.
The Bible claims that everything was created male and female according
to their kind. What happened to the male of Cnemidophorus tigris? If
this lizard started out as a mating pair, macroevolution must have
taken place to render it into the state in which it now exists.
Even if a god created this "kind", it has still subsequently evolved
through genetic mutation into a different "kind" from what it was
originally, and if this species can evolve from one "kind" to another,
then so can any other organism, and design is neither necessary nor
intelligent.
In other words, you've been blown out of the water, Pastor Dave, and
are too intellectually dishonest to admit to the truth.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Heeke" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
12 Oct 2005 09:33:52 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
<regrettable snip of a most efficacious rebuttal>
In other words, you've been blown out of the water, Pastor Dave, and
are too intellectually dishonest to admit to the truth.
Budikka
Well wrought, Budikka666.
Perhaps someone should inform the pastor that if he does not evolve, he
is liable to extinction. He does seem to have one foot already in the
land of the dodo bird.
Intellectual dishonesty is the benchmark of the superstitious.
--
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset.
to email me, concatenate the following:
nom de plume of Jay, Madison, Hamilton-The Federalist
(new, in Latin) at (this planet) dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments |
12 Oct 2005 10:11:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:33:52 GMT, Rick Heeke
<heekster@urplint.not> spake thusly:
Budikka666 wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
<regrettable snip of a most efficacious rebuttal>
In other words, you've been blown out of the water, Pastor Dave, and
are too intellectually dishonest to admit to the truth.
Budikka
Well wrought, Budikka666.
Perhaps someone should inform the pastor that if he does not evolve, he
is liable to extinction. He does seem to have one foot already in the
land of the dodo bird.
Intellectual dishonesty is the benchmark of the superstitious.
These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.
The reality is, they could not offer any proof.
The biggest pieces of evidence they had,
was (some of them paraphrased)...
"Prove that it could not happen."
"What mechanism would stop it from happening"
"Prove God"
"Here, look at this bunch of web pages"
"Dawkins said this could have happened...
Now prove that he was wrong"
"Science doesn't prove anything"
Etc., etc..
The last one, they claim, after ridiculing you because
you don't believe it, which means that whether they
admit it or not, they consider it an absolute truth and
absolute truths require absolute proof.
After a while, I kill filed them. And I mean, after a
while. I gave them plenty of opportunity. I got tired
after a while, of their posts that tried to ridicule
me, ridicule my faith, send me to their standard
web links, etc., etc.. None of those things are proof.
You see, they're upset with me, because I won't allow
them to keep dragging me into their circular arguments
and to keep dragging me around the big loop and they're
upset, because I can tell them exactly where they're
going to go and exactly what they're going to say,
beforehand. :)
| | | | | | |
