| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MsAnthrope" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 08:41:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?! |
In article <1107423912.431243.254020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Orion7
says...
Don't you know evolution is a farce? You are obviously a product of the
brain washing which goes on in our Schools, Colleges and Universities.
I have seen the desperate lengths these Professors and Scientists go to
make people believe in evolution, even fabricating evidence to support
their unsupportable theories.
1st Rule of Creationism: Ignored evidence will go away
2nd Rule of Creationism: Interpret any challenge as personal insult
3rd Rule of Creationism: Claim evidence then quietly slip away
4th Rule of Creationism: Don't be confused by facts
5th Rule of Creationism: Insist that science ignores your proof
6th Rule of Creationism: Claim superiority for Christian education.
7th Rule of Creationism: Always appear to know more than you do.
8th Rule of Creationism: Shift the burden of proof to your critics.
9th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.
10th Rule of Creationism: Never acknowledge your demonstrated errors
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
04 Mar 2005 04:22:11 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-63A9AA.12492504032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew"wrote:
"snex" wrote:
when are you actually going to tell us why archaeopteryx is not
a
transitional between reptiles and birds?
I figured you would be intelligent enough to know better.
Well, is it a reptile or is it a bird?
It's another evolutionary fraud. It is an extinct bird found in the
fossil record having
evidence of feathers, not scales. But evolutionary artists decided
to dress her up in
scales in order to deceive the credulous who would continue to
support the hoax of
macroevolution.
Be wary of artists renditions which build fantastic stories and
pictures based on a few
bones. Even the evolutionist and fossil expert Dr.Patterson, will
caution against making
any claims about archaeopteryx other than what is known.
"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps
no: there is no way
of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of
how one form gave
rise to another....BUT SUCH STORIES ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson,
(evolutionist)
senior
paleontologist,
British Museum of
Natural History
Andrew
nobody disputes the fact that archaeopteryx has feathers. it is
creationists who dispute its reptilian characteristics, like a long
bony tail and many others listed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#reptile-features
stop misrepresenting dr patterson. we have explained to you what he
means, yet you continue to falsely use his statements. you are not
displaying christian honesty.
by the way andrew, all birds have scales. look at their feet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cindy" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Mar 2005 06:37:12 AM |
|
|
snex wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-63A9AA.12492504032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew"wrote:
"snex" wrote:
when are you actually going to tell us why archaeopteryx is
not
a
transitional between reptiles and birds?
I figured you would be intelligent enough to know better.
Well, is it a reptile or is it a bird?
It's another evolutionary fraud. It is an extinct bird found in the
fossil record having
evidence of feathers, not scales. But evolutionary artists decided
to dress her up in
scales in order to deceive the credulous who would continue to
support the hoax of
macroevolution.
Be wary of artists renditions which build fantastic stories and
pictures based on a few
bones. Even the evolutionist and fossil expert Dr.Patterson, will
caution against making
any claims about archaeopteryx other than what is known.
"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps
no: there is no way
of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of
how one form gave
rise to another....BUT SUCH STORIES ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE."
-- Dr. Colin
Patterson,
(evolutionist)
senior
paleontologist,
British Museum of
Natural History
Andrew
nobody disputes the fact that archaeopteryx has feathers. it is
creationists who dispute its reptilian characteristics, like a long
bony tail and many others listed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#reptile-features
stop misrepresenting dr patterson. we have explained to you what he
means, yet you continue to falsely use his statements. you are not
displaying christian honesty.
by the way andrew, all birds have scales. look at their feet.
"The reader may find it of interest to learn that on September 11-15,
1984, an International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt,
Bavaria to evaluate the official status of Archaeopteryx. In describing
the consensus of the evolutionary scientists who attended the
conference, Peter Dodson wrote in the Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology:
At the end of the three days of presentations, [Alan] Charig [chief
curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the British
Museum-BH/BT] orchestrated a concerted effort to summarize the ideas
for which consensus exists. The general credo runs as follows:
Archaeopteryx was a bird that could fly, but it was not necessarily the
direct ancestor of modern birds.... A communiqu=E9 expressing the
unanimous belief of all participants in the evolutionary origin and
significance of Archaeopteryx was adopted, in order to forestall
possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists
(1985, 5:179)."
But on the other hand this reptile to bird just so "story surrounding
Archaeopteryx has been complicated by another paleontological discovery
that has left many evolutionists scratching their heads in regard to
where, exactly, the creature actually fits in the evolutionary scheme
of things. The fossil remains of two crow-sized birds 75 million years
older than Archaeopteryx (i.e., approximately 225 million years old
according to evolutionary dating schemes) were found near Post, Texas
by Sankar Chatterjee and colleagues from Texas Tech University in
Lubbock, Texas (see Beardsley, 1986). This new find, designated
Protoavis, has been controversial since its announcement for several
reasons. First, five years passed between its discovery and the
publication of Chatterjee's scientific paper in the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society (see Chatterjee, 1991). Second, the
fossils were badly crushed and jumbled, and no feathers of any kind
were visible. Some paleontologists who have seen the fossils are
unconvinced that they are the remains of birds. Yet as Dr. Chatterjee
(who has gone on the offensive to defend his position) has pointed out,
the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally
bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle. In
commenting on this, one author wrote in Science: "His
[Chatterjee's-BH/BT] reconstruction also shows a flexible neck,
large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the
rear of the skull to the eye socket-a feature seen in modern birds
but not dinosaurs" (Anderson, 1991, 253:35). Chatterjee has named the
find Protoavis texensis (first bird from Texas). In 1997, he authored a
beautifully illustrated book on the evolution of birds (The Rise of
Birds), in which Protoavis was displayed prominently as being the
forerunner of modern birds.
All of this, needless to say, has caused evolutionists severe problems
because Protoavis appeared at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, which
means that if it is accepted as genuine, then birds certainly could not
have evolved from dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestor
of modern birds. After looking at the evidence for Protoavis, Kansas
University paleontologist Larry Martin suggested: "There's going to
be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face" (as quoted
in Anderson, 1991, 253:35). "
"So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin
Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum
of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx
has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the
ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of
answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one
form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be
favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of
science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in
Sunderland, 1988, p. 102)."
quotes above from: Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the
"Dinosaurs-To-Birds" Theory-[Part I] by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
~ Cindy
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Mar 2005 04:25:41 PM |
|
|
Cindy wrote:
snex wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-63A9AA.12492504032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew"wrote:
"snex" wrote:
when are you actually going to tell us why archaeopteryx is
not
a
transitional between reptiles and birds?
I figured you would be intelligent enough to know better.
Well, is it a reptile or is it a bird?
It's another evolutionary fraud. It is an extinct bird found in
the
fossil record having
evidence of feathers, not scales. But evolutionary artists
decided
to dress her up in
scales in order to deceive the credulous who would continue to
support the hoax of
macroevolution.
Be wary of artists renditions which build fantastic stories and
pictures based on a few
bones. Even the evolutionist and fossil expert Dr.Patterson, will
caution against making
any claims about archaeopteryx other than what is known.
"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes,
perhaps
no: there is no way
of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories
of
how one form gave
rise to another....BUT SUCH STORIES ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE."
-- Dr. Colin
Patterson,
(evolutionist)
senior
paleontologist,
British Museum
of
Natural History
Andrew
nobody disputes the fact that archaeopteryx has feathers. it is
creationists who dispute its reptilian characteristics, like a long
bony tail and many others listed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#reptile-features
stop misrepresenting dr patterson. we have explained to you what he
means, yet you continue to falsely use his statements. you are not
displaying christian honesty.
by the way andrew, all birds have scales. look at their feet.
"The reader may find it of interest to learn that on September 11-15,
1984, an International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in
Eichstatt,
Bavaria to evaluate the official status of Archaeopteryx. In
describing
the consensus of the evolutionary scientists who attended the
conference, Peter Dodson wrote in the Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology:
At the end of the three days of presentations, [Alan] Charig [chief
curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the British
Museum-BH/BT] orchestrated a concerted effort to summarize the ideas
for which consensus exists. The general credo runs as follows:
Archaeopteryx was a bird that could fly, but it was not necessarily
the
direct ancestor of modern birds.... A communiqu=E9 expressing the
unanimous belief of all participants in the evolutionary origin and
significance of Archaeopteryx was adopted, in order to forestall
possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists
(1985, 5:179)."
this of course has nothing to do with archy's status as transitional.
being a cousin to bird ancestors as opposed to being the ancestor
itself doesnt make archy's dinosaurian qualities just disappear.
But on the other hand this reptile to bird just so "story surrounding
Archaeopteryx has been complicated by another paleontological
discovery
that has left many evolutionists scratching their heads in regard to
where, exactly, the creature actually fits in the evolutionary scheme
of things. The fossil remains of two crow-sized birds 75 million
years
older than Archaeopteryx (i.e., approximately 225 million years old
according to evolutionary dating schemes) were found near Post, Texas
by Sankar Chatterjee and colleagues from Texas Tech University in
Lubbock, Texas (see Beardsley, 1986). This new find, designated
Protoavis, has been controversial since its announcement for several
reasons. First, five years passed between its discovery and the
publication of Chatterjee's scientific paper in the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society (see Chatterjee, 1991). Second, the
fossils were badly crushed and jumbled, and no feathers of any kind
were visible. Some paleontologists who have seen the fossils are
unconvinced that they are the remains of birds. Yet as Dr. Chatterjee
(who has gone on the offensive to defend his position) has pointed
out,
the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally
bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle.
In
commenting on this, one author wrote in Science: "His
[Chatterjee's-BH/BT] reconstruction also shows a flexible neck,
large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from
the
rear of the skull to the eye socket-a feature seen in modern birds
but not dinosaurs" (Anderson, 1991, 253:35). Chatterjee has named the
find Protoavis texensis (first bird from Texas). In 1997, he authored
a
beautifully illustrated book on the evolution of birds (The Rise of
Birds), in which Protoavis was displayed prominently as being the
forerunner of modern birds.
All of this, needless to say, has caused evolutionists severe
problems
because Protoavis appeared at the time of the earliest dinosaurs,
which
means that if it is accepted as genuine, then birds certainly could
not
have evolved from dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx could not be the
ancestor
of modern birds. After looking at the evidence for Protoavis, Kansas
University paleontologist Larry Martin suggested: "There's going to
be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face" (as quoted
in Anderson, 1991, 253:35). "
unfortunately chatterjee is now refusing to let anyone else examine the
fossils. there is also the issue, of course, that since archy is not a
direct ancestor, protoavis may be that ancestor. other problems with
protoavis are mentioned here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#protoavis
"So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin
Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British
Museum
of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that
Archaeopteryx
has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the
ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of
answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how
one
form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should
be
favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of
science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted
in
Sunderland, 1988, p. 102)."
after a long tirade about andrew misrepresenting patterson's words,
what do you do? you paste the same exact quote (taken from creationist
sources, not the original) and misrepresent it. transitional fossils
have NOTHING to do with direct ancestry.
quotes above from: Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the
"Dinosaurs-To-Birds" Theory-[Part I] by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
~ Cindy
by the way cindy, you asked why frogs arent developing wings for
flight. perhaps you should take a gander at the wallace tree frog.
those feet sure look like proto-wings to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cindy" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
09 Mar 2005 02:26:54 PM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1110234341.460932.220440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snipped till later>
: by the way cindy, you asked why frogs arent developing wings for
: flight.
No I didn't. http://snipurl.com/LetsPretend
As far as I am concerned you like to make things up, which is one
reason why I dropped out of discussions with you, and your "real
scientist" buddies previously.
: perhaps you should take a gander at the wallace tree frog.
: those feet sure look like proto-wings to me.
Ok. They are very interesting, as are your beliefs, they change like
the wind...
Remember telling me: ' i never said "frogs will fly," ' ? Right after
you said "
"i assert that over a long period of time the frog's skin could
continue
to loosen until it developed wings for flight. what evidence do i have
to back this up?
1) genetic mutations allow this to happen
2) genetic mutations happen in frogs
3) flight would be advantageous for frogs
4) mutations that led toward flight would be favored "
Of course you proved none of this because as you also wrote:
"SCIENCE DOES NOT OFFER PROOF.
SCIENCE DOES NOT OFFER PROOF.
SCIENCE DOES NOT OFFER PROOF."
First:
You already know that I believe God created frogs, and so I believe
this gliding tree frog
is just as he was created to be, but others may not so I mention this
for them.
Next:
if you want to compare Wallace's tree frog to a bird...
http://snipurl.com/FlyingTreeFrog <---- AKA rhacophorus nigropalmatus
Why do you think his 4 feet look like 4 wings? how many creatures do
you know of which have wings at the end of their legs?? Do all frogs
with webbed feet look like they have proto-wings to you? Or does only
this one appear that way to you because it glides? To me there is more
similarity to a duck's webbed feet than to the duck's wings here.
Since you refuse to consider a Creator in the equation, perhaps you
could still consider that this frog may not be evolving into a bird...
Have you evolutionists considered that it may be the ancestor or the
descendant of one of his fellow gliding rain forest creatures?
There are quite a few possibilities in the Asian rainforest, and I
can't understand how you've ruled them out, as they seem to be similar
too. Or perhaps there are already "real science" "just so stories"
about this?? There certainly seems to be just as much "evidence" to
support one of these below as a ancestor or descendant, since science
doesn't offer proof...
FYI:
Many animals there ascend up trees and glide either to the ground or
to other trees nearby. The main mechanism behind gliding is to
increase the body surface area. To do this, all the species of gliding
animals have a flap of skin that is flattened and spread out. The
wider the spread, the smoother the glide and the longer the time they
spent in air. BUT gliding is not exclusive only to one group of
animals. It is fact that gliding can be seen, among, snakes, lizards,
frogs and mammals. I offer you the following species as some examples:
the paradise flying snake (chrysopelea pelias),
flying dragon (draco volans),
flying gecko (ptychozoon kuhli),
and there's the Australian sugar glider (petaurus breviceps).
The Indo-Pacific flying snakes are able to climb smooth trunk of trees
using their specially adapted belly scales. But when they move to
another tree or when they are threatened, they launch themselves into
the air from a maximum height of about 65 ft -- sometimes higher.
How they can glide is because their rib cage expands so that their
belly scales become concave and make wavy movements in the air. They
are able to glide across distances of around 30-35 ft but they always
descend very quickly while doing so..
So flying snakes don't exactly fly either, they are kinda like
parachuters.
Another animal that glides is the flying lemur...
"The most prominent feature of these species is the patagium. It
consists of three parts, namely the anterior, the flank membrane, and
the tail membrane. By extending its arms and legs, the flying lemur is
able to spread its patagium open and glide over distances of 160 to
224 ft. The patagiuym acts as an airfoil, thus enabling the flying
lemur to glide from one tree to another without having to touch the
ground. Another special feature of the flying lemur is the sharp
claws. They secure the landing of this mammal on vertical tree trunks,
and enable it to leap upwards before starting on the next glide.
Before it takes off, the flying lemur will climb to the top of its
tree. It ascends by a series of clumsy rebounds, as it grasp the trunk
with its outspread limbs. It stops at the top of the tree to choose
its flight path. Then it launches to a long glide to another tree,
landing low on the trunk, usually 10 to 13 ft above the ground. It
will then climb slowly upwards along the tree, often pausing for rest.
Once it reaches the top, it prepares to glide off again.
The Flying Squirrel too glides through the air. They can glide for
about 150 ft at a time. And when they do, they always finish lower
than from where they started. Therefore, a high starting point makes a
long glide possible. Just like the flying lemur, their skin acts as a
parachute and assists their movement. A fold of skin on each side of
its body connects the front and back legs. When a flying squirrel
stretches out its legs, the folds of skin spread out to form wings.
Using its broad, flat tail to guide its flight, the flying squirrel
glides from tree to tree. The squirrel's path is usually downward,
subsequently straight, and finally upward. Giant flying squirrels can
glide for distances of over 300 ft." (Sorry, I forgot where I copied
and pasted this stuff about lemurs and squirrels from, but I don't
believe anyone will argue about it. Of course I am continually
surprized at what people take exception to..)
Imagine Rocky the flying squirrel descending from the frog prince..
Of course once upon a time I posted: "The problem is one species
cannot evolve into another" and you agreed and posted "they don't".
~ Cindy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cindy" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
09 Mar 2005 03:22:21 PM |
|
|
Hmmm...
If the snipped url didn't work in the previous post: Try this longer
link to see a image of Wallace's tree frog.
http://www.screaming.net/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/images/1929n071.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
04 Mar 2005 03:27:05 PM |
|
|
In article <38rvohF5pgroiU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-63A9AA.12492504032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew"wrote:
"snex" wrote:
when are you actually going to tell us why archaeopteryx is not a
transitional between reptiles and birds?
I figured you would be intelligent enough to know better.
Well, is it a reptile or is it a bird?
It's another evolutionary fraud. It is an extinct bird found in the fossil
record having
evidence of feathers, not scales. But evolutionary artists decided to dress
her up in
scales in order to deceive the credulous who would continue to support the
hoax of
macroevolution.
Be wary of artists renditions which build fantastic stories and pictures
based on a few
bones. Even the evolutionist and fossil expert Dr.Patterson, will caution
against making
any claims about archaeopteryx other than what is known.
"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there
is no way
of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one
form gave
rise to another....BUT SUCH STORIES ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson,
(evolutionist)
senior paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural
History
According to http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/featdino.html
there are other feathered fossils, and they may fall "between" birds and
dinosaurs. There is even a theory that some dinosaurs, e.g.,
velociraptor, were descended from birds.
And the most recent scientific analyses do not support Andrew's
scepticism. Andrew is at least 20 years behind the times.
The issues are nowhere as clear as Andrew would have us believe.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 10:36:43 PM |
|
|
In article <38pug6F5o78dhU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-1298E7.17070603032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Ash" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"wcb" wrote:
At teh start of the jorney, you have theropod dinosaurs, at the
other end,
you have birds. What would have halted that evolution 120
million years ago?
They can't say.
This is part of the hoax that those who have their minds closed
to evidence
try to present as happening eons ago, where of course no one was
there to
observe and document.
They are so zealous and fanatically desperate to present their
false paradigm
(which is actually a religion, not science) before the gullible
masses that they
will take a bird fossil, carefully attach a small dinosaur tail
to it, and present
this hoaxed fossil as ~proof~ that "Birds are Theropods."
An excellent example of this hoax is in National Geographic Nov
'99 which
had ten color pages presenting this very idea, which was wholly
based on a
hoaxed fossil.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_09.html
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
http://www.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html
Which does nothing to refute all the genuine fossils.
There are no genuine fossils of theropods turning into birds.
There are no such fossiles that have been discovered, but considering
the span of time and the number of fossils that have been discovered,
it
is hardly surprising that our known fossil records are incomplete.
There is no problem in placing fossils that are found today in specific
distinct
categories. Whereas, if macroevolution was what had occurred..there
would
be billions of transitional forms.
But possibly none of them preserved. Only an extremely small fraction
of the myriads of billions of living things that once existed but which
were not in transition have been fossilized, and probably only an
extremely small fraction of those fossils have been found, and there
remain long periods during which we can be sure that certain forms
existed during which no record of them has been found. <----------"It
is not a scientific theory, but a religious one"
So by what logic or mathematics does it become inevitable that those
possibly ephemeral transitional forms must have been preserved in such
numbers as to have made their discovery inevitable by now?
The lack of these transitional forms is in itself proof that
macroevolution
never happened.
Nevertheless, this false theory is still accepted among the credulous
who dare not to question this hoax which has deceived so many.
Like those who dare not question the hoax of intelligent design as a
scientific theory? It is not a scientific theory, but a religious one,
and should not be offered as anything but what it is.
Does not your statement apply to your theory as stated above and elsewhere??
My theory is that there are mechanisms of speciation not yet known but
that, when discovered, they will prove to be natural, compatible with
evolution, and not require the meddling of an inteligence..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 11:11:36 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"wcb" wrote in message news:421a9528$0$158$16895aa@news.airnews.net...
At teh start of the jorney, you have theropod dinosaurs, at the other
end,
you have birds. What would have halted that evolution 120 million years
ago?
They can't say.
This is part of the hoax that those who have their minds closed to
evidence try to present as happening eons ago, where of course no one was
there to observe and document.
They are so zealous and fanatically desperate to present their false
paradigm (which is actually a religion, not science) before the gullible
masses that they will take a bird fossil, carefully attach a small
dinosaur tail to it, and present this hoaxed fossil as ~proof~ that "Birds
are Theropods."
Sorry, but this was not a scientific hoax, but a hoax on part of a fossil
peddler.
It was uncovered quickly enough as a hoax, and by scientists.
But that was not even really a good example, we now have numerous earlier
fossils that show that dinosaurs were indeed progenitors of birds.
You ignoring THOSE facst are as much a fraud as the fraudulent fossil
peddler, worse actually. He was just out to make a buck.
You to spread lies and disinformation.
Which is far, far worse.
Meanwhile you also ignore the fact that your pathetic fairy tales in genesis
cannot be true, there was no Adam, no eve, no god afraid that Adam was
going to become a god after eating a magic fruit.
(Genesis 3:22).
That ***** monkies like you would like in name of such a deeply stupid tall
tale makes you a pestilence and evil to all humanity for your willful
stupidity.
Andrew
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 07:16:01 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Tue, 1 Mar 2005 01:26:56 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"wcb" wrote in message news:421a9528$0$158$16895aa@news.airnews.net...
At teh start of the jorney, you have theropod dinosaurs, at the other end,
you have birds. What would have halted that evolution 120 million years
ago?
They can't say.
This is part of the hoax that those who have their minds closed to evidence
try to present as happening eons ago, where of course no one was there to
observe and document.
Yes, that would be the creation stories in Genesis, since no one
was there to observe and document. It is a hoax.
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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 01:27:54 PM |
|
|
In article <38iqr2F5pb1r7U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"wcb" wrote in message news:421a9528$0$158$16895aa@news.airnews.net...
At teh start of the jorney, you have theropod dinosaurs, at the other end,
you have birds. What would have halted that evolution 120 million years
ago?
They can't say.
This is part of the hoax that those who have their minds closed to evidence
try to present as happening eons ago, where of course no one was there to
observe and document.
In science, such scientific theories must be regarded as possible until
falsified or replaced by scientific theories that better explain the
known facts.
"Andrew"'s theories are not scientific, so are ineligible for scientific
consideration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
02 Mar 2005 01:33:46 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <38iqr2F5pb1r7U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"wcb" wrote in message news:421a9528$0$158$16895aa@news.airnews.net...
At the start of the journey, you have theropod dinosaurs, at the other
end,
you have birds. What would have halted that evolution 120 million
years ago?
They can't say.
This is part of the hoax that those who have their minds closed to
evidence try to present as happening eons ago, where of course no one was
there to observe and document.
In science, such scientific theories must be regarded as possible until
falsified or replaced by scientific theories that better explain the
known facts.
Its not so simple. We do have fossils. We know dinosaurs and
birds share many common charcteristics. So it is obvious that they
were related and birds came from dinosaurs.
Its only a matter of finding enough fossil evience to track the exact
relationships through time. There is enough no experts doubt the link.
Just the exact details.
"Andrew"'s theories are not scientific, so are ineligible for scientific
consideration.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 01:36:04 PM |
|
|
In article <37p3jtF5dm5ukU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:fsje11lfdgdnsgnopfog1sj4aton1l8gva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown
to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable,
unrepeatable
and unobserved.
Really?
That's right, Don! Microevolution and vertical variation are constantly
occurring,
but macroevolution never happened. It is contrary to the laws of true
science.
Which laws, and which science? If your definition of "true" science does
not conform to the scientists' definition of science, then your "true"
science is irrelevant to science.
It is unfeasible
Proof?
infeasible,
Proof?
unachievable
Proof?
and unrepeatable
This I will grant, since we cannot rewind the universe and start it over
to repeat things like macroevolution. But the same objection does not
prevent us from theorizing scientifically about the history and future
of plate tectonics, for example.
-- it is
the hoax which has warped the direction of our society by the
implantation of a world view based on falsehood.
Then so are theist religions. With considerably more warping than caused
by any scientific theories.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:55:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:17:20 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
That's right, Don! Microevolution and vertical variation are constantly occurring,
but macroevolution never happened. It is contrary to the laws of true science. It
is unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable and unrepeatable -- it is the hoax which has
warped the direction of our society by the implantation of a world view based on
falsehood.
You keep making the same assertions. How about some objective
evidence? Lime WHICH "laws of true science" it's contrary to?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 10:22:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:17:20 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:fsje11lfdgdnsgnopfog1sj4aton1l8gva@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable, unrepeatable
and unobserved.
Really?
That's right, Don! Microevolution and vertical variation are constantly occurring,
but macroevolution never happened. It is contrary to the laws of true science. It
is unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable and unrepeatable -- it is the hoax which has
warped the direction of our society by the implantation of a world view based on
falsehood.
Macroevolution? Is this the same as 'Blindwatchmaking' the creationist
straw 'theory of evolution' whereby new creatures suddenly spring out
fully formed or suddenly develop a new function such as an eye 'just
like that'?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:56:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:22:14 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> said in alt.atheism:
Macroevolution? Is this the same as 'Blindwatchmaking' the creationist
straw 'theory of evolution' whereby new creatures suddenly spring out
fully formed or suddenly develop a new function such as an eye 'just
like that'?
I think it's more like new 'kinds' just pop up. But there can't be a
definition of 'kind'.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 01:23:48 PM |
|
|
In article <37oprcF5bfoisU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7B667F.22482218022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
All of the hypotheses I have seen about the beginning and development of
life, other than those requiring intelligent designers, have been
scientific, in the sense that they are, at least in principle,
falsifiable.
To show that they are in any way hoaxes only requires that one falsify
them.
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable,
unrepeatable
and unobserved.
References? Such a claim without evidence to back it up, is worthless.
I can as easily claim that macroevolution has been veified
scientifically, and has been verified as feasible acheived and observed.
Without the confirmation of supporting scientific evidence, which Andrew
has not produced, his claim is no better than mine.
And there is certainly evidence that macroevolution is consistent with,
say, the fossil records of eohippus, but that intelligent design is not,
unless that designer had to experiment again and again to get things
right.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:54:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:30:40 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7B667F.22482218022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
All of the hypotheses I have seen about the beginning and development of
life, other than those requiring intelligent designers, have been
scientific, in the sense that they are, at least in principle,
falsifiable.
To show that they are in any way hoaxes only requires that one falsify
them.
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown to
be contrary to scientific law
That claim has been shown to be nonsense.
unfeasible
Feasibility is an opinion, not a falsification.
infeasible
Same thing.
unachievable
Since speciation has been observed, not true.
unrepeatable
See above.
and unobserved.
It can't be unobserved when it's been observed.
Unless you want to redefine "macroevolution".
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-20
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 10:18:34 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:30:40 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7B667F.22482218022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
All of the hypotheses I have seen about the beginning and development of
life, other than those requiring intelligent designers, have been
scientific, in the sense that they are, at least in principle,
falsifiable.
To show that they are in any way hoaxes only requires that one falsify
them.
The hypotheses of macroevolution has verily been falsified by being shown to
be contrary to scientific law, unfeasible, infeasible, unachievable, unrepeatable
and unobserved.
By whom? This is just assertion without relevant cites to research
falsifying the theory and consequently worthless as with all
unsubstantiated opinion or belief.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 06:56:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:55:24 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-2ECB19.21455518022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic religions
have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you, so why do you keep
supporting the hoax of your god?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 09:29:33 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:61of115l733nfjntm7fri266iq17naqjj4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic religions have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you, so why do you keep
supporting the hoax of your god?
I mentioned this before, Al. I don't believe in any gods. I renounce
every one of them. However I do believe in the true and living God,
maker of heaven and earth the seas and the fountains of waters who
has made Himself known by the works of His hands..the marvelous
things of His creation.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 10:35:37 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:61of115l733nfjntm7fri266iq17naqjj4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has
effected our entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic
religions have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you, so why do you keep
supporting the hoax of your god?
I mentioned this before, Al. I don't believe in any gods. I renounce
every one of them. However I do believe in the true and living God,
maker of heaven and earth the seas and the fountains of waters who
has made Himself known by the works of His hands..the marvelous
things of His creation.
Andrew
notice the title of this thread. its "Objective Evidence." when are you
going to give us some?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 11:33:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1108874137.307437.181940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:61of115l733nfjntm7fri266iq17naqjj4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has
effected our entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic
religions have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you, so why do you keep
supporting the hoax of your god?
I mentioned this before, Al. I don't believe in any gods. I renounce
every one of them. However I do believe in the true and living God,
maker of heaven and earth the seas and the fountains of waters who
has made Himself known by the works of His hands..the marvelous
things of His creation.
Andrew
notice the title of this thread. its "Objective Evidence." when are you
going to give us some?
I second the motion!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:21:30 PM |
|
|
On 19 Feb 2005 20:35:37 -0800, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in
alt.atheism:
notice the title of this thread. its "Objective Evidence." when are you
going to give us some?
Would "never" sound like too soon?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Robertson" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
15 Mar 2005 07:06:56 AM |
|
|
THE GOD OF ABRAHAM ISAAC AND JACOB IS THE GOD OF CREATION HE IS ONE .
THERE IS NO OTHER BESIDES THE JEWS ARE RIGHT .
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108874137.307437.181940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:61of115l733nfjntm7fri266iq17naqjj4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has
effected our entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic
religions have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you, so why do you keep
supporting the hoax of your god?
I mentioned this before, Al. I don't believe in any gods. I renounce
every one of them. However I do believe in the true and living God,
maker of heaven and earth the seas and the fountains of waters who
has made Himself known by the works of His hands..the marvelous
things of His creation.
Andrew
notice the title of this thread. its "Objective Evidence." when are you
going to give us some?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 10:09:41 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:29:33 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:61of115l733nfjntm7fri266iq17naqjj4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic religions have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you, so why do you keep
supporting the hoax of your god?
I mentioned this before, Al. I don't believe in any gods. I renounce
every one of them.
Good. Then you're an atheist and no longer believe the hoax of
creationism.
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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 10:26:25 PM |
|
|
In article <37qegvF4oqrecU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:61of115l733nfjntm7fri266iq17naqjj4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our
entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic religions
have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you, so why do you keep
supporting the hoax of your god?
I mentioned this before, Al. I don't believe in any gods. I renounce
every one of them. However I do believe in the true and living God,
maker of heaven and earth the seas and the fountains of waters who
has made Himself known by the works of His hands..the marvelous
things of His creation.
Andrew
That appears to me to be remarkably like believing God is not a god.
The Red Queen has nothing on Andrew.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
20 Feb 2005 10:20:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:29:33 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:61of115l733nfjntm7fri266iq17naqjj4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Virgil" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our entire society!
Andrew
Nowhere near so injuriously as the Hoaxes of various theistic religions have done.
Various theistic religions have done some bad
stuff. That's no excuse to support the hoax!!
That's what we've been trying to tell you, so why do you keep
supporting the hoax of your god?
I mentioned this before, Al. I don't believe in any gods. I renounce
every one of them. However I do believe in the true and living God
Which is a god, so you just lied.
Your god is a god - one of many thousands dreamed up by men. It's no
different than Odin, Zeus, Jove or Ba'al to us, so stop assuming that
everyone here is Christian. This isn't your bible study group.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
19 Feb 2005 06:55:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:35:15 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:dcsc11h7lo5k23m8nf3p6cotuugl3d27p3@4ax.com...
"Evolution's a hoax"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. This hoax has effected our entire society!
Stop trying to be a clown, Andrew. My original post is still on
Google for everyone to see how dishonest you were. I said, "Andrew's
a one-trick-pony: 'Evolution's a hoax'"
But I was wrong, Andrew, you're a two-trick pony. We can add
dishonest misquoting to your repertoire.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Lett | |
