| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2006 10:17:21 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Basis of Evolution |
"Boffin" wrote in message news:1166641881.507461.290350@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Louis Pasteur's experiment disproved 'spontaneous creation' or
'spontaneous generation' search for either on Wikipedia. It was the
belief that maggots grew out of meat, mice formed from wheat, etc.
He did not disprove evolution.
Louis Pasteur delivered the fatal blow to the false doctrine of
spontaneous generation. The myth that was held for centuries
that life could arise ~spontaneously~ out of organic materials.
It never happened. It is contrary to scientific law. Nevertheless,
multitudes again are deceived by this falsehood simply because
they stubbornly embrace a religion which rejects all evidence of
a Divine Creator.
Evolutionary theory (goo to you theory) is a 'religion' because it
makes a 'god' out of materialism and naturalism, while excluding
evidence which exposes it to be false and persecuting those who
attempt to do so.
Andrew
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
22 Dec 2006 12:42:01 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:l%Iih.2507$w91.688@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Boffin" wrote in message
news:1166641881.507461.290350@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Louis Pasteur's experiment disproved 'spontaneous creation' or
'spontaneous generation' search for either on Wikipedia. It was the
belief that maggots grew out of meat, mice formed from wheat, etc.
He did not disprove evolution.
Louis Pasteur delivered the fatal blow to the false doctrine of
spontaneous generation. The myth that was held for centuries that life
could arise ~spontaneously~ out of organic materials.
It never happened. It is contrary to scientific law. Nevertheless,
multitudes again are deceived by this falsehood simply because they
stubbornly embrace a religion which rejects all evidence of
a Divine Creator.
Evolutionary theory (goo to you theory) is a 'religion' because it makes a
'god' out of materialism and naturalism, while excluding evidence which
exposes it to be false and persecuting those who attempt to do so.
But of course the Theory of Evolution has nothing at all to do with
spontanious generation.
So shut the hell up you ignorant twat.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
22 Dec 2006 02:01:21 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" wrote in message news:8sKdnRgHX_Og4xbYnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@io.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Boffin" wrote:
Louis Pasteur's experiment disproved 'spontaneous creation' or
'spontaneous generation' search for either on Wikipedia. It was the
belief that maggots grew out of meat, mice formed from wheat, etc.
He did not disprove evolution.
Louis Pasteur delivered the fatal blow to the false doctrine of spontaneous generation. The myth that was held for centuries that
life could arise ~spontaneously~ out of organic materials.
It never happened. It is contrary to scientific law. Nevertheless, multitudes again are deceived by this falsehood simply because
they stubbornly embrace a religion which rejects all evidence of
a Divine Creator.
Evolutionary theory (goo to you theory) is a 'religion' because it makes a 'god' out of materialism and naturalism, while
excluding evidence which exposes it to be false and persecuting those who attempt to do so.
But of course the Theory of Evolution has nothing at all to do with spontanious generation.
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living organisms
from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
22 Dec 2006 02:59:54 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:lQWih.2790$yx6.1330@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" wrote in message
news:8sKdnRgHX_Og4xbYnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@io.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Boffin" wrote:
Louis Pasteur's experiment disproved 'spontaneous creation' or
'spontaneous generation' search for either on Wikipedia. It was the
belief that maggots grew out of meat, mice formed from wheat, etc.
He did not disprove evolution.
Louis Pasteur delivered the fatal blow to the false doctrine of
spontaneous generation. The myth that was held for centuries that life
could arise ~spontaneously~ out of organic materials.
It never happened. It is contrary to scientific law. Nevertheless,
multitudes again are deceived by this falsehood simply because they
stubbornly embrace a religion which rejects all evidence of
a Divine Creator.
Evolutionary theory (goo to you theory) is a 'religion' because it makes
a 'god' out of materialism and naturalism, while excluding evidence
which exposes it to be false and persecuting those who attempt to do so.
But of course the Theory of Evolution has nothing at all to do with
spontanious generation.
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
No. It does not.
They call it abiogenesis.
So it's the science of abiogenesis that deals with the origin of life. Thank
you for agreeing that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with
spontanious generation.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 06:36:56 AM |
|
|
Andrew skrev:
"Denis Loubet" wrote in message news:8sKdnRgHX_Og4xbYnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@io.=
com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Boffin" wrote:
Louis Pasteur's experiment disproved 'spontaneous creation' or
'spontaneous generation' search for either on Wikipedia. It was the
belief that maggots grew out of meat, mice formed from wheat, etc.
He did not disprove evolution.
Louis Pasteur delivered the fatal blow to the false doctrine of sponta=
neous generation. The myth that was held for centuries that
life could arise ~spontaneously~ out of organic materials.
It never happened. It is contrary to scientific law. Nevertheless, mul=
titudes again are deceived by this falsehood simply because
they stubbornly embrace a religion which rejects all evidence of
a Divine Creator.
Evolutionary theory (goo to you theory) is a 'religion' because it mak=
es a 'god' out of materialism and naturalism, while
excluding evidence which exposes it to be false and persecuting those =
who attempt to do so.
But of course the Theory of Evolution has nothing at all to do with spo=
ntanious generation.
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
a=B7bi=B7o=B7gen=B7e=B7sis (noun): The supposed development of living or=
ganisms
from nonliving matter. Also called au=
togenesis,
spontaneous generation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 10:58:14 AM |
|
|
"thomas p." wrote in message news:1166877416.815732.146630@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living organisms
from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 12:03:58 PM |
|
|
Andrew skrev:
"thomas p." wrote in message news:1166877416.815732.146630@80g2000cwy.goo=
glegroups.com...
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
Evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence
of a god.
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that addresses the origin
of life.
a=B7bi=B7o=B7gen=B7e=B7sis (noun): The supposed development of livin=
g organisms
from nonliving matter. Also calle=
d autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
Which, once again, is not part of the theories of evolution.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wombat" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 12:49:27 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote in message news:1166877416.815732.146630@80g2000cwy.goo=
glegroups.com...
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a=B7bi=B7o=B7gen=B7e=B7sis (noun): The supposed development of livin=
g organisms
from nonliving matter. Also calle=
d autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
Wombat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 09:16:26 PM |
|
|
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living organisms
from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
The evidence is that life was created. Microevolution (adaptation and variation)
has been going on ever since. There is genetic variation resulting from selective
breeding such as found in the different varieties of dogs, or from placing stress
on populations which results in adaptation in harmony with the laws of genetics.
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when evolutionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as "proof" of
macroevolution.
There are hundreds of scientists who have the courage to reject the falsehood
of macroevolution http://tinyurl.com/g45k j. Do you have the courage to agree
with them? Or, will you remain with the deceived masses who prefer the false
security of a 'politically correct hoax?'
Wombat
Andrew
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact
of life are great con-men, And the story they are telling
may be the GREATEST HOAX EVER."
-- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 09:49:59 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" wrote in message news:eimjh.2549$pQ3.758@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living organisms
from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
The evidence is that life was created. Microevolution (adaptation and variation)
has been going on ever since. There is genetic variation resulting from selective
breeding such as found in the different varieties of dogs, or from placing stress
on populations which results in adaptation in harmony with the laws of genetics.
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when evolutionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as "proof" of
macroevolution.
There are hundreds of scientists who have the courage to reject the falsehood (Use this link..............)
of macroevolution http://tinyurl.com/g45k j. Do you have the courage to agree http://tinyurl.com/g45kj <--------
with them? Or, will you remain with the deceived masses who prefer the false
security of a 'politically correct hoax?'
Wombat
Andrew
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact
of life are great con-men, And the story they are telling
may be the GREATEST HOAX EVER."
-- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
24 Dec 2006 01:52:16 AM |
|
|
Andrew skrev:
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googleg=
roups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generati=
on.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a=B7bi=B7o=B7gen=B7e=B7sis (noun): The supposed development of liv=
ing organisms
from nonliving matter. Also cal=
led autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
The evidence is that life was created.
You have provided none.
Microevolution (adaptation and variation)
has been going on ever since. There is genetic variation resulting from s=
elective
breeding such as found in the different varieties of dogs, or from placin=
g stress
on populations which results in adaptation in harmony with the laws of ge=
netics.
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when evol=
utionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as "proof=
" of
macroevolution.
The problem is that you make claims that you fail to back up and ignore
all points that counter your claims.
There are hundreds of scientists who have the courage to reject the false=
hood
of macroevolution http://tinyurl.com/g45k j. Do you have the courage to a=
gree
with them? Or, will you remain with the deceived masses who prefer the fa=
lse
security of a 'politically correct hoax?'
Please list a few of these scientists and their published work that
disproves evolution, or are you just going to continue making
unsupported claims.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
24 Dec 2006 07:34:05 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:16:26 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living organisms
from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
The evidence is that life was created.
And the evidence for that is?
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when evolutionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as "proof" of
macroevolution.
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 12:03:07 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:id0to2148vacdihh8geaa6kq0gjii3qfjj@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living organisms
from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
The evidence is that life was created.
And the evidence for that is?
In His creation.
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when evolutionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as "proof" of
macroevolution.
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 07:47:52 AM |
|
|
Andrew skrev:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:id0to2148vacdihh8geaa6kq0gjii3qfjj@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
snip
The evidence is that life was created.
And the evidence for that is?
In His creation.
The evidence for the creation is that there is a creation? That is the
empirical evidence you have to offer?
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when evolutionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as "proof" of
macroevolution.
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
It is good of you to admit it. Now if you could admit that you have no
evidence for a creation we would have real progress.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 09:26:38 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:03:07 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:id0to2148vacdihh8geaa6kq0gjii3qfjj@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living organisms
from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
The evidence is that life was created.
And the evidence for that is?
In His creation.
Blatantly begged question. Rejected as such.
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when evolutionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as "proof" of
macroevolution.
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
No, there's simply no such distinction.
Unless, of course, you think that lying for your god is ok.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 12:19:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006, Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:id0to2148vacdihh8geaa6kq0gjii3qfjj@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote in message
news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
<snip>
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
There really is such a thing as the distinction between micro-evolution
and macro-evolution, but there is no point in making the distinction
as the basis for part of an argument purporting to prove that
macro-evolution does not happen. This is because the natural causes that
make micro-evolution to happen are explainable as being the same natural
causes that make macro-evolution to happen.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 12:25:40 AM |
|
|
"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0612251300350.11742@norge.freeshell.org...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
<snip>
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
There really is such a thing as the distinction between micro-evolution
and macro-evolution, but there is no point in making the distinction
as the basis for part of an argument purporting to prove that
macro-evolution does not happen. This is because the natural causes that
make micro-evolution to happen are explainable as being the same natural
causes that make macro-evolution to happen.
If macroevolution were how life developed, we would find innumerable
*transitional forms* in the fossil record - but they are not there.
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the
major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just clearly
and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of finding
a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we invariably find
large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of evolution."
-- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
28 Dec 2006 07:29:10 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0612251300350.11742@norge.freeshell.org...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
<snip>
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
There really is such a thing as the distinction between micro-evolution
and macro-evolution, but there is no point in making the distinction
as the basis for part of an argument purporting to prove that
macro-evolution does not happen. This is because the natural causes that
make micro-evolution to happen are explainable as being the same natural
causes that make macro-evolution to happen.
If macroevolution were how life developed, we would find innumerable
*transitional forms* in the fossil record - but they are not there.
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the
major groups or phyla.
But plenty between species.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
http://talkorigins.org/features/whales/
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Of course it a very real way we *expect* to not find transitions
between "major groups". At the time that two "major groups" split they
were one species that split into two. The large differences we see
today were not there in the beginning, it was just another speciation
process. It is only after hundreds of millions of years that you see
large scale differences.
From the beginning, these organisms were just clearly
and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today.
So let's consider this. All mammals, whales and humans and rats and
bats, are one group, not even a phyla. To consider the phyla
vertebrates you have to include snakes and finches and sharks and frogs
and goldfish. And all of those descend from something like Pikaia, a
small worm like organism
(http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Pikaia&btnG=Search+Images).
Consider that in terms of this "clearly and distinctly set apart" bit.
By that claim humans and condors and rays are "clearly" the same group.
Your "Ph.D." seems willing to accept the common descent of all of those
organisms, but somehow not more.
BTW, there are transitionals between vertebrates and invertebrates:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html
Instead of finding
a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we invariably find
large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of evolution."
-- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
Wow, the man has a Ph.D. Any idea what field? What research has he done
in the field of paleontology and what has he published?
.
|
|
|
| User: "vernon stillhere@anhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
28 Dec 2006 08:12:51 AM |
|
|
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1167312550.773607.208400@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between
the
major groups or phyla.
But plenty between species.
N-O-N-E
get an education
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
28 Dec 2006 08:58:20 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 07:12:51 -0700, "vernon"
<stillhere@anhere> let us all know that:
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1167312550.773607.208400@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between
the
major groups or phyla.
But plenty between species.
N-O-N-E
T-O-N-S
Get an education.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
28 Dec 2006 11:25:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 07:12:51 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1167312550.773607.208400@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between
the
major groups or phyla.
But plenty between species.
N-O-N-E
get an education
You know nothing, fool. Take your own advice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
28 Dec 2006 11:03:19 AM |
|
|
vernon wrote:
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1167312550.773607.208400@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between
the
major groups or phyla.
But plenty between species.
N-O-N-E
get an education
This is another lie, Vern, and everyone knows it. The fossil record
documents all, and in far greater detail than we have a right to
expect. Your ignorance does not change the *facts* Vern, and you are
not YahVern, who can change reality by simple fiat. Got that? You're
just a sad, ignorant, tragically ill-informed dupe for the creationist
lie mill.
The fossil record shows continuous change. In short, it's nothing like
the ignorant Bible writers claimed.
It starts some 3.8 billion years ago with the first indications of
life. In short, it's nothing like the ignorant Bible writers claimed.
For quite literally billions of years, the record contains only the
simplest organisms or traces of them. In short, it's nothing like the
ignorant Bible writers claimed.
Then there is a rapid rise of complexity, but there's nothing alive
back then that has a living twin today. In short, it's nothing like
the ignorant Bible writers claimed.
Those things alive back then show a record of change - of regular and
repeated change. In short, it's nothing like the ignorant Bible
writers claimed.
The fossil record shows transtion - over the long term and over the
short term. In short, it's nothing like the ignorant Bible writers
claimed.
Over the short term it shows, in places, a contionuous, unbroken chanin
of evolution and speciation. In short, it's nothing like the ignorant
Bible writers claimed.
Over the long term, it shows, chronologically, transtions between
species, between genera, between families, between classes, between
orders. In short, it's nothing like the ignorant Bible writers
claimed.
The fossil record shows five major extinctions, none of which the
ignorant Bible writers knew of. The exticntions in some instances were
utterly revastating, quit literally decimating living things.
But every time, those remaining organisms grew and spread and
flourished, and a huge new array of living things evolved - things
which had never been on this planet before. It's documented, Vern, in
the fossil record, in detail. Reports of this can be found because of
the hard work of scientists, Vern. Those reports are published all
over the world **BY PEOPLE OF ALL RELIGIOUS FAITHS** in peer-reviewed
science journals.
Quite recently, some scientists decided to test the Theory of
Evolution. That's why it's a science, Vern - because you can test it
and prove it false if it fails the test. They looked at what the
Theory predicts, and it predicted that there would be a transitional
form between fish and terrestrial organisms. It predicted in which
geologic strata this transtional should be found.
Neil Shubin and Ted Daeschler wondered where such strata would be
found. They knew that rocks which were at the equator at in the
geologic time-period where this fossil should be found are now 750
miles from the North Pole.
The Theory of Evolution predicted this transtional would be there.
So did Neil and Ted post messages on the Internet taunting the
creationists about this? Did they post vacous diatribes of unsupported
assertion like you and Andrew do, Vern?
Nope. They went there and spent six long, hard years digging.
And guess what? They found Tiktaalik. It was exactly where they had
expected it to be based on what the Theory of Evolution predicts. In
life, it was four to nine feet long. It had fins as fish do, but those
fins were not like fish fins. Instead, they contained shoulder and
wrist bones like a terrestrial creature. It had an elbow. It had
scales like a fish, but it could move its head unlike any fish.
In short, this Theory which you lie about, this scientific theory which
you inanely say is only a theory, this theory which you say is empty,
predicted this and the prediction was borne out not by some idiotic
creationist writing an idiotic book with idiotic and cluelessly
unsupported assertions in it, but by actual science, by hard work, by
dedicated people who know their stuff, by people who not only talk the
talk, but walk the walk, too.
Nothing alive today existed in the Cambrian, Vern.
There was no grass in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no flowers in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no trees in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no flies in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no horses in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no frogs in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no dinosaurs in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no sharks in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no humans in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no bats in the Cambrian, Vern.
There were no birds in the Cambrian, Vern.
In short, it's nothing like the ignorant Bible writers claimed.
Thge fossil record shows none of these things in the Cambrian, Vern.
It shows only aquatic life.
Then it shows fish.
Higher up it shows amphibians.
Higher still, reprtiles.
Higher still, birds and mammals.
Higher still, primates.
Higher still, humans in several sopecies
In short, it's nothing like the ignorant Bible writers claimed, Vern.
Alive today are representatives of every transtional form from the
simplest vertebrate to humans:
There are fish. There are true fish that can, for short periods breath
air and move on land, such as the walking catfish.
There are fish which can exist out of the water and are adapted to do
so for short times, such as the mudskipper and the lungfish.
There are amphibians, which are "halfway" between fish and reptiles,
which start life confined to the water, but which develop the ability
to go onto land. But they're always tied to the water.
There are reptiles which are "halfway" between amphibians and mammals.
They are divorced from an aquatic lifestyle, but are cold-blooded, so
they're not divorced from heat and cold., and they're tied to their
eggs.
There are monotremes, which are hardly much better than furry reptiles.
They're mammals, but only just. They lay eggs and have primitive
mammary glands. Kind of like a reptile to mammal transtional might be.
And there are true mammals, among which are primates, some very
primitive, some more advanced. Among these, the most human-like, in
many of their behaviors, in their overall appearance, and in their eyes
are chimpanzees. They they can create, they can use tools, they can
even paint well-enough to fool an art critic. And they can learn
language.
And what do you know? Their genome is almost identical to ours.
In short, all the transtionals (at least, living examples of such
things) are alive and well today, and actual transtionals pepper the
fossil record. If this is the case - if the fossil record has them and
we see examples of what a transtional could be, and they're alive today
throughout the animal kingdom, even across classes - then where is the
basis for claiming they never existed? Short of simply lying through
your teeth, where is the basis, where, even, is the logic, of making a
pathetic claim like that?
In short, you're a pathetic little liar, Vern, and your lies are now
exposed for everyone to see in this world-wide public forum.
Congratulations. Jesus must be really proud of you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
28 Dec 2006 08:58:06 AM |
|
|
vernon wrote:
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1167312550.773607.208400@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between
the
major groups or phyla.
But plenty between species.
N-O-N-E
get an education
You haven't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
28 Dec 2006 10:04:46 AM |
|
|
vernon wrote:
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1167312550.773607.208400@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between
the
major groups or phyla.
But plenty between species.
N-O-N-E
You seem to have forgotten to actually read the references I gave.
Closing your eyes does not make the world go away:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
http://talkorigins.org/features/whales/
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
get an education
Someone once said something about motes and beams. You might want to
look that up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wombat" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 03:25:38 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0612251300350.11742@norge.freeshell.org...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
<snip>
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
There really is such a thing as the distinction between micro-evolution
and macro-evolution, but there is no point in making the distinction
as the basis for part of an argument purporting to prove that
macro-evolution does not happen. This is because the natural causes that
make micro-evolution to happen are explainable as being the same natural
causes that make macro-evolution to happen.
If macroevolution were how life developed, we would find innumerable
*transitional forms* in the fossil record - but they are not there.
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the
major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just clearly
and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of finding
a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we invariably find
large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of evolution."
-- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
Who is Scott M. Huges. PH.D anyway. What is his Ph. D in.
Wombat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 06:25:14 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0612251300350.11742@norge.freeshell.org...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
<snip>
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
There really is such a thing as the distinction between micro-evolution
and macro-evolution, but there is no point in making the distinction
as the basis for part of an argument purporting to prove that
macro-evolution does not happen. This is because the natural causes that
make micro-evolution to happen are explainable as being the same natural
causes that make macro-evolution to happen.
If macroevolution were how life developed, we would find innumerable
*transitional forms* in the fossil record - but they are not there.
That's a lie:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Is this one of your best "proofs" that evolution is false? Well I've
shown it to be false as easily as one reference. Do you have a better
argument than this? Bring it on. Support it with science or rationale
or both and let's have that debate. Let's thrash this out once and for
all on this world-wide public forum.
Do you accept?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "vernon stillhere@anhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 05:07:36 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1167135914.715581.176050@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0612251300350.11742@norge.freeshell.org...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
<snip>
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
There really is such a thing as the distinction between micro-evolution
and macro-evolution, but there is no point in making the distinction
as the basis for part of an argument purporting to prove that
macro-evolution does not happen. This is because the natural causes
that
make micro-evolution to happen are explainable as being the same
natural
causes that make macro-evolution to happen.
If macroevolution were how life developed, we would find innumerable
*transitional forms* in the fossil record - but they are not there.
That's a lie:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Is this one of your best "proofs" that evolution is false? Well I've
shown it to be false as easily as one reference. Do you have a better
argument than this? Bring it on. Support it with science or rationale
or both and let's have that debate. Let's thrash this out once and for
all on this world-wide public forum.
Do you accept?
Budikka
You first on the "science" bit
he he he he he he
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 07:31:44 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:25:40 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0612251300350.11742@norge.freeshell.org...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
<snip>
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
There really is such a thing as the distinction between micro-evolution
and macro-evolution, but there is no point in making the distinction
as the basis for part of an argument purporting to prove that
macro-evolution does not happen. This is because the natural causes that
make micro-evolution to happen are explainable as being the same natural
causes that make macro-evolution to happen.
If macroevolution were how life developed, we would find innumerable
*transitional forms* in the fossil record
We do. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded or a liar. Which
are you?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 01:48:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Andrew wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0612251300350.11742@norge.freeshell.org...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote: Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
<snip>
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
I realize it is too much for some to comprehend.
There really is such a thing as the distinction between micro-evolution and
macro-evolution, but there is no point in making the distinction
as the basis for part of an argument purporting to prove that
macro-evolution does not happen. This is because the natural causes that
make micro-evolution to happen are explainable as being the same natural
causes that make macro-evolution to happen.
If macroevolution were how life developed, we would find innumerable
*transitional forms* in the fossil record - but they are not there.
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the
major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just clearly
and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of
finding a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we
invariably find large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general
theory of evolution." -- Scott M. Huges.
PH.D
The above is known as the "missing link theory". It has been debunked
many times by many eminent scientists having professional credentials
and academic degrees piled much higher and deeper.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
27 Dec 2006 08:28:15 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:16:26 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.google=
groups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous generat=
ion.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a=B7bi=B7o=B7gen=B7e=B7sis (noun): The supposed development of li=
ving organisms
from nonliving matter. Also ca=
lled autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
The evidence is that life was created.
And the evidence for that is?
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when evo=
lutionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as "proo=
f" of
macroevolution.
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
Actually, there are lots of biologists who disagree with you about
that. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. If you
look you will find plenty of books written about the subject and
college course taught on it. Of course there is plenty of evidence that
macroevolution occurs.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution)
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "vernon stillhere@anhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
27 Dec 2006 09:02:19 PM |
|
|
<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1167272895.540084.221680@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:16:26 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Wombat" wrote in message
news:1166899767.711727.55760@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"thomas p." wrote:
Andrew skrev:
The evolutionary theory of origins starts with spontaneous
generation.
They call it abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
It is in the evolutionally origins model which
discards all evidence of a super intelligence
that was actively involved in the creation of
life.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living
organisms
from nonliving matter. Also
called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
If God started the abiogenesis 'thingy' would you still have problems
with HIS scheme using evolution.
The evidence is that life was created.
And the evidence for that is?
If you want to call that evolution, that's fine. The problem is when
evolutionists
take the above undisputed information, and deceptively use that as
"proof" of
macroevolution.
There's no such thing as the micro/macro distinction.
Actually, there are lots of biologists who disagree with you about
that. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. If you
look you will find plenty of books written about the subject and
college course taught on it. Of course there is plenty of evidence that
macroevolution occurs.
Play you simple minded game of semantics.
Have fun.
That's an advantage of being simple.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
