Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?!

Religions > Atheism > Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 37 of 58

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: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	13 Feb 2005 01:37:10 AM

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:37:32 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:

"snex" wrote in message news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
this conversation seems to be mutating to the point that it is almost extinct.

That's where mutations lead..*extinction*

That's where *all* life leads.

Therefore, mutations are not and have not been a mechanism for macro-evolution.

You were given an example of speciation. That you choose to consider
it "still a bacteria" doesn't make it not speciation.
--
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by
Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "snex"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 11:31:48 AM

Cindy wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Cindy wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108224845.016394.258490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Cindy wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108053487.593861.30250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Cindy wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7o0m01t1f9maiam6060gafdlddqltr3m55@4ax.com...

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:50:22 -0800, "Andrew"

<andrew.321remov@usa.net>

said in alt.atheism:

There are Super Labs trying to disprove the above, but

yet

have not done

so. Therefore, the fact remains....that life does

only

come

from

preexisting life.

You just proved that your "god" construct is a hoax.

1) Life comes only from life.
2) There's life on Earth.
3) Some form of life must have created the life in #2.
4) Since #1, the life form in #3 must have been created

some

form

of life.

And so on, forever. There could never have been a

first

life

form

(your god) because, as per #1, it would have had to be

created

by a

previous life form.

For Christians God is life, self existant and eternal,

and

the

source

of all life, and every thing. So it boils down to

believing

that

life

originated with him or everything came from nothing...

Nothing comes from nothing... nothing ever has, it's not

even

scientific to believe so, or to make that hypothesis as

also

based on nothing. Zero zip, nada for evidence or proof.

There's an old joke about an atheist taking a challenge

create

life, and reaching down to pick up a handful of dirt, and

God

saying

"get your own ingredients". It's silly, but true.

this is a strawman argument, for no atheist believes that

there

was

ever "nothing."

That is rather absolute... and leaves us with only one other

option,

atheists believe there was something. So since you are

already

speaking for all, what is "it" that atheists believe was

self-existant

and (or) eternal, that pre-existed all life ? Surely if there

tangible evidence, and proof of this, then there is a

consensus?

What

is this evidence and proof?

~ Cindy

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the

evidence

of things not seen.

ok i take that back, my candidates were listed elsewhere and

they

were

not snipped from that post. still, why did cindy not see them

bother

to find them?

Is that a backhanded apology for calling me dishonest? Possibly

the

reason I may not have seen it, is that I am not glued to this

thread,

and so don't read all or everyday, and there are now at least

1000

posts here. I do remember somebody saying something somewhere

around

here about possibilities...

I was actually asking for facts and not a list of maybes tho-

~ Cindy

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this

case,

but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

Is your facts and evidence and answer to my question all over this
thread for all to see as well? Because I see nothing but opinions,

and

would appreciate some
direct answers, as this conversation seems to be mutating to the

point

that it is almost extinct.

you declared that species cannot evolve into other species. i showed
otherwise. you then refused to concede that you were wrong. this is
dishonest. i did not give you nothing but opinions, i gave you a
scientific study.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 10:52:25 PM

On 12 Feb 2005 09:31:48 -0800, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in
alt.atheism:

Cindy wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Cindy wrote:

She said:

I was actually asking for facts and not a list of maybes tho-

So you said:

it is a fact that the quantum foam exists. there is no indication that
it required a creation.

And she answered:

Is your facts and evidence and answer to my question all over this
thread for all to see as well? Because I see nothing but opinions, and
would appreciate some
direct answers, as this conversation seems to be mutating to the point
that it is almost extinct.

And you gave her a fact about the quantum foam and she ignored that
too. They's all you're going to get. They'll demand facts, then
ignore the facts you give them. If you demand facts from them they'll
deny your demand.
It's all they have, and they can't admit that they're wrong and that,
when they die, they're just going to not be alive any longer, so they
have to keep denying that anything that contradicts their Little Book
of the Promise of an Afterlife can be true. That's okay - for all
their dishonesty, when they die, that's all there will be, just death,
regardless of what they need to keep their sanity.
--
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Andrew"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 03:26:47 PM

"snex" wrote in message news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this case,
but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html
.

User: "snex"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 03:33:42 PM

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this

case,

but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

pointing out dishonesty is not an adhominem. saying cindy is wrong
because she is a christian would be. cindy made a claim, and i refuted
it. she later tried to move the goalposts (a dishonest tactic) to avoid
conceding the point. i already MADE my case, and knowing that she could
not refute it, she moved the goalposts.
i am not the one failing to answer to evidence andrew, you and cindy
are. you have left many pieces of evidence unanswered, and you have
presented exactly zero evidence of your own.
.

User: "Cindy"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 04:00:38 PM

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108244022.934442.285570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this

case,

but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

pointing out dishonesty is not an adhominem. saying cindy is wrong
because she is a christian would be. cindy made a claim, and i

refuted

it. she later tried to move the goalposts (a dishonest tactic) to

avoid

conceding the point. i already MADE my case, and knowing that she

could

not refute it, she moved the goalposts.

Excuse me? Pointing out dishonesty without proof is just a lie. It
seems Andrew and I agree in this area. Ad hominem attacks are an
evasion or a diversion. The problem here is that you are claiming I
moved the goal posts but I am saying nothing now that I haven't been
saying all along, nor are you providing proof of me doing so.
Why not try quoting me instead of telling all what I mean, why not
show proof of lies instead of claiming I am dishonest without proof?
that way I can address facts and not fantasy and opinion, as could
Andrew? That way you can prove your own integrity and honesty. That
way you and the readers could see who is credible here?
What do claims without evidence prove?

i am not the one failing to answer to evidence andrew, you and cindy
are. you have left many pieces of evidence unanswered, and you have
presented exactly zero evidence of your own.

Without me even asking, you claimed you could provide fossil evidence,
between one species and another, then attacked me for not accepting
your challenge, so I then, in deference to your wishes, asked you to
address the links between land mammals and whales: and short necked
mammals and giraffes, where is this evidence?
I am lazy according to you because you are stumped and cannot provide
proof as you claimed, and are unable to admit that?
I informed you already, I have many more questions...
~ Cindy
.

User: "snex"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 04:27:52 PM

Cindy wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108244022.934442.285570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this

case,

but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

pointing out dishonesty is not an adhominem. saying cindy is wrong
because she is a christian would be. cindy made a claim, and i

refuted

it. she later tried to move the goalposts (a dishonest tactic) to

avoid

conceding the point. i already MADE my case, and knowing that she

could

not refute it, she moved the goalposts.

cindy's original statement (from http://tinyurl.com/6lt8d):
"Because the problem is, one species can not evolve into another."
i responded by showing her the talkorigins FAQ, one portion in
particular, that shows postmating reproduction attempts in worms led to
0% offspring.
cindy then retorted with "BUT THEYRE STILL WORMS!"
anybody using the SCIENTIFIC definition of "species" can see she moved
the goalposts (a dishonest tactic). cindy, however, thinks she gets to
define "species" any way she likes and then expects everybody to know
what she is talking about. sorry, cindy, i was unaware that all worms
were the same species. the several thousand different species and
genera that scientists assign all the different worms to threw me off!
cindy still hasnt dealt with the fact that worms show more genetic
diversity than exists between humans and chimpanzees. if all worms are
the same species, then cindy must accept that humans evolved from
chimpanzees.

i am not the one failing to answer to evidence andrew, you and

cindy

are. you have left many pieces of evidence unanswered, and you have
presented exactly zero evidence of your own.

Without me even asking, you claimed you could provide fossil

evidence,

between one species and another, then attacked me for not accepting
your challenge, so I then, in deference to your wishes, asked you to
address the links between land mammals and whales: and short necked
mammals and giraffes, where is this evidence?

i GAVE you the evidence for the whale group. you snipped it and it
disappeared in your response!
as for giraffes, you DID NOT ask for "short necked mammals and
giraffes." you just asked for "giraffes." despite the fact that every
single part of a giraffe is accounted for except for its long neck, you
continue to maintain that it could not evolve. why? if every other part
of a giraffe is documented in the fossil record, what is preventing its
neck from stretching? you have yet to even attempt to address this.

I am lazy according to you because you are stumped and cannot provide
proof as you claimed, and are unable to admit that?

I informed you already, I have many more questions...

~ Cindy

you are lazy because i said i would name the fossils, not that i would
give you college courses on them. i met the challenge by naming the
fossils. if you want to learn about them in detail, go to a library or
a museum. thats why your taxes are paying for them, after all.
.

User: "Cindy"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	14 Feb 2005 11:07:44 AM

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108247272.705829.81090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Cindy wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108244022.934442.285570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in

this

case,

but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is

weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

pointing out dishonesty is not an adhominem. saying cindy is

wrong

because she is a christian would be. cindy made a claim, and i

refuted

it. she later tried to move the goalposts (a dishonest tactic)

avoid

conceding the point. i already MADE my case, and knowing that

she

could

not refute it, she moved the goalposts.

Excuse me? Pointing out dishonesty without proof is just a lie. It
seems Andrew and I agree in this area. Ad hominem attacks are an
evasion or a diversion. The problem here is that you are claiming

moved the goal posts but I am saying nothing now that I haven't

been

saying all along, nor are you providing proof of me doing so.
Why not try quoting me instead of telling all what I mean, why not
show proof of lies instead of claiming I am dishonest without

proof?

that way I can address facts and not fantasy and opinion, as could
Andrew? That way you can prove your own integrity and honesty.

That

way you and the readers could see who is credible here?

What do claims without evidence prove?

0% offspring.

cindy then retorted with "BUT THEYRE STILL WORMS!"

But before that, when first given these links with alleged proof of
speciation (one species evolving into another) I posted:
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1107553641.218109.18320@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Cindy wrote:

"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6cc5c05d3572ac989763@news.comcast.giganews.com...

In article <36fpavF50nivjU1@individual.net>, Cindy said...

What are the odds of a male and female of each species
evolving at the exact same place and time to be able to
reproduce?

That question bellows out misunderstanding like a dragon blasts
out fire.

It's not as if biologists believe that an australopithecine
mother gave birth to a fully human homo sapiens baby boy, while
somewhere on the other side of the jungle -- by astonishing luck
-- another mother ape produced a fully human baby girl. That's
not how it works. That's not even the drunken, demented twelfth
cousin of how it works.

It is funny, huh?

How does it work?

Because the problem is, one species can not evolve into another.

A fish didn't walk out of the sea and then become lions and tigers

and

bears, oh my! And what alot of people...

Natural selection/Variations in species(Mendelian genetics) can

occur

but it always occurs within a species or a basic type, they do NOT
produce new species, and different breeds within a species are not
evolution. Moths remain moths, finches remain finches, and flys

and

germs remain flies and germs.

Mutations are usually weak, and are weeded out, and even hybrids

are

mostly sterile.

That's the only options there are isn't it?

My two cents.

~ Cindy

-----------
Brian E. Clark

many speciation events have been observed in both the laboratory and

the wild. see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html. also, explain the
existence of ring species.

Admittedly some of the language used in the links is over my head, and
I am not as educated in the area of plants as I am in human anatomy
and physiology but I think we are maybe just defining "species"
differently. This to me is examples of varieties within a species,
such as I was referring to earlier, and so is actually according to my
Creationist beliefs.
===============
I also wrote:
"The truth is I was supplied with links to examples of "speciation
events" in this very thread, and I did read them. I'm not such a
Cro-Magnon pea brain that I can't understand that all of the examples
are of variety within species, and are not proof of one species
evolving into another."
I also responded by asking:
Am I correct in assuming that you believe they are a new species
because the two groups of worms in this study did not mate? am I also
correct in thinking not all "real scientists" define species this way?
and quoting from the links above which supported this...
which has yet to be addressed...

anybody using the SCIENTIFIC definition of "species" can see she

moved

the goalposts (a dishonest tactic). cindy, however, thinks she gets

define "species" any way she likes and then expects everybody to

know

what she is talking about.

When i say worms are worms, and that his examples are variation of
species and not evidence of macro evolution to me, what is the
misunderstanding?
I also posted the following,, which was only addressed with mockery
and insults WITH A OBVIOUS ABSENCE OF ADDRESSING EVEN ONE POINT
Here are some as recorded in a section of one chaper from " The
evolution Cruncher":
Why the species barrier
Evolution is based on change from one species to another. In chapters
9 and 10, Natural Selection and Mutations, we have found that there is
no mechanism by which it can occur; and in chapter 12, Fossils and
Strata, we will learn that there is no past evidence of such change.
The fact that all plant and animal true species are distinct types is
a crux in the entire controversy. So we will here devote a full
chapter to speciation. This material will help fill out the picture of
what we are learning in other chapters.
DARWIN ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES-The battle over evolutionary
theory finds its center in the species. This is where *Charles Darwin
attempted to fight it, but without success. Even though he called his
first book by that name, he never did try to figure out the origin of
the species.
"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his
Origin of the Species."-*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking
of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria,
(1985), p. 33.
*Darwin could not figure out why species even existed. If his theory
was correct, there would be no distinct species, only confused
creatures everywhere and no two alike.
"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days,
gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his
evolutionary speculation and wrote: 'As by this theory, innumerable
transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded
in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead
of being, as we see them, well defined species?"-H. Enoch, Evolution
or Creation (1966), p. 139.
To make the situation worse, *Darwin did not know of one instance in
which a species changed into another.
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot
prove that a single species has been changed."-*Charles Darwin, My
Life and Letters.
ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES UNKNOWN-(*#1/27 Origin of the Species Unknown /
#2/13 The Experts are Puzzled*) The problem of species has become a
major unsolved problem of the evolutionists, because they cannot
figure out where they came from.
"More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of
Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is 'a
major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.' "-*G.R. Taylor, Great
Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.
"In the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major
unsolved problem. The British geneticist, William Bateson, was the
first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: 'In dim
outline evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential
bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and
nature of species remains utterly mysterious.' Sixty years later we
are if anything worse off, research having only revealed complexity
within complexity."-*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p.
140.
1- IDENTIFYING THE SPECIES
PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIFICATIONS-(*#3/15 Classifying the Plants and
Animals*) The science of classifying plants and animals is called
taxonomy.
"Classification or taxonomy is the theory and practice of naming,
describing, and classifying organisms."-*Stansfield, The Science of
Evolution (1977), p. 98.
Taxonomists have placed all plants and animals in logical categories,
and then arranged them on several major levels, which are these:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Sub-species
It should be kept in mind that there is no such thing as a kingdom,
phylum, class, order, or family. Those are just convenient names and
are like rooms in a zoo or botanical garden, each one with a different
collection of plant or animal species. It is the species that are
alive; the room is not. The terms "phyla, classes, orders, families,"
and most of the "genera" are merely category labels. It is only the
true species which should count. This includes some of what is listed
as "species," and some life-forms called "genera," which should be
labeled as species.
"According to the author's view, which I think nearly all biologists
must share, the species is the only taxonomic category that has, at
least in more favorable examples, a completely objective existence.
Higher categories are all more or less a matter of opinion."-*G.W.
Richards, "A Guide to the Practice of Modern Taxonomy," in Science,
March 13, 1970, p. 1477 [comment made during review of Mayr's
authoritative Principles of Systematic Zoology]
PANTHERA LEO-This is how the taxonomists classify the lion.
PANTHERA LEO
http://evolution-facts.org/images/ev-cr-pix/EC376.jpg
CLICK For illustration
Here is an example of how classification works. This is the
classification of the house cat:
"PHYLUM Chordata-all animals possessing at some time in their life
cycle pharyngeal pouches, a notochord, and a dorsal tubular nerve
cord.
"SUBPHYLUM Vertebrata-all those animals that possess vertebrae.
"CLASS Mammalia-all those animals that have internally regulated body
temperature, possess hair, and suckle their young.
"ORDER Carnivora-All those mammals whose teeth are adapted to a
predatory mode of life, but which are not insectivores.
"FAMILY Felidae-all those Carnivora with retractile claws, lengthy
tail, and a certain tooth arrangement.
"GENUS Felis-the true cats.
"SPECIES domestica-[the domesticated cats]."- Wayne Frair and Percival
Davis, A Case for Creation (1983), p. 37.
SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR SPECIES-If you go to the zoo, you will see a sign
on one cage, "Giant Panda," with the words, "Alluropoda melanoleuca"
just below it. The first line is capitalized and is the common name of
this large black-and-white bear from China; the second line is its
"scientific name." Scientists worldwide understand these two-part
Latin names (called binominals). The first word is the genus, and the
second is species. Sometimes the name of the discoverer or namer is
added as a third word. The Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, invented this
method of scientific nomenclature in the 1750s.
*Darwin recognized that there was no evidence that any species had
evolved from any other species. He decided that, instead of denying
the existence of species, the only practical solution for
evolutionists was, first, to classify plants and animals; second,
point to similarities between them; and, then, declare that therefore
one must have evolved from the other or from a common ancestor. From
beginning to end, evolution is just theory, theory, theory.
THE GENESIS KIND-Back in the beginning, the law of the "Genesis kinds"
was established:
"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the
fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind . . And the earth brought
forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree
yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind."-Genesis
1:11, 12.
In the same way, the birds, sea-life, and animals were each to
reproduce "after their kind" (Genesis 1:20-22, 24-25). This principle
was not to be violated. And this is what we find in the fossil record
and in the world today. The "Genesis kind" is generally equivalent to
the species level, but sometimes the genus level. This variation is
due to flaws in our humanly devised classification systems.
Since the Hebrew words used in Genesis for "create" and "kind" are
bara and min, Frank Marsh, a careful research scholar in speciation,
has suggested the term baramin as an identifying name for this
"Genesis kind." (Min is used 10 times in Genesis 1, and 21 times in
the rest of the Old Testament.) It would be a good word to use, since
it is more accurate than "species," which can at times be incorrect.
Other names for the Genesis kinds, are the Genesis species, the true
species, and the biological species. The present author favors "true
species" as the term most easily understood.
BIOLOGICAL SPECIES-The term, "biological species," is increasingly
becoming accepted as a basic reference point by scientists. Although
there are instances in which obvious sub-species do not cross breed,
biological species would normally apply to those species which do not
cross-breed outside of their own kind. However, there are instances in
which two sub-species of a true species no longer cross breed.
MICRO- VS. MACROEVOLUTION-(*#4/6 Micro and Macro*) Evolutionists point
to changes WITHIN the species and call that "microevolution," and then
proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that theorized
changes ACROSS species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be
occurring.
But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new
varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. New
plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the species barrier.
New varieties and new breeds are not evolution; they are only
variation within the already existing species. There is no such thing
as "microevolution." Changes within the true species are not
evolution.
COUNTING THE SPECIES-*Aristotle could list only about 500 kinds of
animals; and his pupil, *Theophrastus, the most eminent botanist of
ancient Greece, listed only about 500 different plants.
Through the centuries, as naturalists counted new varieties of
creatures in the field, in the air, and in the sea, and as new areas
of the world were explored, the number of identified species of
animals and plants grew. By 1800 it had reached 70,000. Today there
are several million. Two-thirds of them are animal and one-third are
plant. The flowering plants and insects are the two largest single
categories.
Nearly all of these millions of so-called "species" consist of
sub-species of a much smaller number of original Genesis kinds, the
true species. For example, today there are many different
hummingbirds: but, originally, there was only one. Its gene pool
permitted it to produce many sub-species.
JOHN RAY-John Ray (Wray) (1627-1705) apparently was the first
scientist to formerly recognize the "species." He prepared a large
classification of all the species of plants and animals known in his
time (about 18,600).
Ray was an earnest Christian who, in the wonderful structures of
plants and animals, saw abundant evidence of a Creator's hand.
CARL LINNAEUS-Carl Von Linne (1707-1778) spent his adult life as a
teacher at the University of Uppsala. At the age of 50, he latinized
his name to "Carolus Linnaeus." The classification system of plants
and animals developed by Linnaeus was to become the standard used
today. He published it in his book, Systema Naturae, in 1735.
Linnaeus came to two definite conclusions: (1) Species were, for the
most part, the equivalent of the "Genesis kind." (2) There had been no
change across the basic categories-now or earlier. As a result of his
studies, Linnaeus arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the
fixity of species. He said, "We reckon as many species as issued in
pairs from the hands of the Creator" (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From
the Greeks to Darwin, 1929, p. 187).
Men today may call themselves experts in taxonomy, but it is
significant that the two men in human history able to lay a solid
foundation for biological classification-saw in all their findings
only evidence of creation, not evolution.
LINNAEUS AND RAY-Linnaeus was the one who developed our modern system
of classification. Unfortunately, he frequently listed, as separate
species, life-forms that could interbreed. Some of these decisions
were based on ignorance, but nevertheless we live with the results
today. Thus, the true species are not always those that are listed in
the textbooks as "species." It is now recognized, by many qualified
biologists, that John Ray did better quality work; for he carefully
adhered to biological species in preparing his species categories. In
contrast, Linnaeus at times confused them by placing true species in
genera or sub-species categories.
LUMPERS AND SPLITTERS-There has been a perennial problem in regard to
the "lumpers" and "splitters." There is a tendency for the
taxonomists-the experts who classify plants and animals-to fall into
one or the other of these two categories.
The lumpers place species together, which should be divided into
sub-species. The splitters tend to put true species into sub-species
categories.
"Lumper species," are also called "Linnaean species" because, back in
the early 1700s, both Linnaeus and Ray pioneered the lumping of
species. "Splitter species" are also called "Jordanian species" for
the French botanist, Jordan, who initiated this approach in the early
1800s.
So today we find both Linnaean and Jordanian species scattered
throughout the scientific lists of plants and animals. It is important
to keep this in mind, for selective breeding of Jordanian species can
appear to produce new species! This would appear to prove evolutionary
claims and indicate species cross-over as taken place, -when,
actually, two members of different sub-species, of the same true
species, have interbred.
When the Santa Gertrudis cattle were developed in the 1960s by
breeding zebu bulls with strains of Texas longhorns, Herefords, and
shorthorns, the result was a new sub-species; but some splitters
classify it as a "new species." Yet the Santa Gertrudis is merely
another type of the cattle species and able to crossbreed with several
others.
FAMILY TREE-(*#8/7 Our Family Tree*) Everyone has seen paintings in
museums and textbooks of our "family tree," with its worms, birds,
apes, and man shown in relation to how they evolved from one another.
The impression is given that there can be no doubt that it really
happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those charts?
COMPARING THE FAMILY TREES-In reality, there are only twigs (actual
species) all over the ground. The rest of the "evolutionary tree" is
as imaginary as the two lower sketches, below.
COMPARING THE TREES
http://evolution-facts.org/images/ev-cr-pix/EC382.jpg
link to illustration
The truth is that the "Evolutionary Tree of Life" is just another
fake, like all the other "evidences" of evolutionary theory.
One example of what you will find on one "limb" of this imaginary
"tree" are a mutually diverse group of creatures called the
"coelenterates" solely because they have a saclike body, tentacles,
and a single mouth opening. Although coral and jellyfish are not a bit
alike, they are therefore classified together. We are supposed to
believe that, because coral and jellyfish are together on the tree,
one evolved from the other! One is a hard-bodied creature; the other
does not have a bone in its body. In the plant kingdom, the Compositae
is merely a wastebasket category that includes all the flowering
plants that cannot be fitted in somewhere else. So therefore, they are
supposed to have evolved from one another. This "tree" is a
classificationist's nightmare!
All it really consists of is separate twigs, with each twig a separate
species. Even *Richard Milner, a diligent evolutionary researcher,
admits the fact.
"Delicate twigs, burgeoning in all directions, is closer to our
current idea of evolutionary history."-*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of
Evolution (1990), p. 54.
2 - FACTS ABOUT SPECIES
INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SPECIES-Here are some facts about species and
sub-species that will help you understand some of the problems
inherent in this interesting field of plant and animal classification:
1 - Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinus) and the
black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus) look just like each other
in every way, and freely interbreed. Yet they have different songs!
Although they have been classified as two different species, we have
here one species with two alternate gene factors.
2 - Wheat. Linnaeus classified spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L) as a
different species than winter wheat (T. hybernum L). Yet they are both
strains of the same wheat. They will cross and produce fertile
hybrids. They should have been classified as sub-species.
SUBSPECIES OF DOGS-Dogs, dogs, everywhere-and scientists agree that
they are all sub-species.
3 - Ladybugs. The ladybird beetle (Coccinellidae) has been divided
into a number of different "species," but solely on the basis of
different wing covers and the number and arrangement of spots on their
backs.
4 - Song sparrows. For over two centuries four species of sparrows in
North America had been listed (Lincoln, fox, swamp, and song).
Gradually this number increased as taxonomists moved westward and
found additional sparrows. Soon we had lots of sparrow "species." But
as more and more were discovered, it was recognized that they were but
intermediates between the others! So the experts finally got together
and reclassified them all as sub-species of but one species, the song
sparrow (Passereila melod�a).
5 - Foxes. The red fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland red fox
have been categorized in different species, although the only
difference is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail for the
Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists list 10 varieties of red fox,
while 2 others list one species (Vulpes fulva) and count 12
sub-species. All these foxes are actually in one true species.
6 - Cattle. There are several different subspecies of cattle (Bos
taurus L). Although the American bison (Bison bison L) and the
European bison (Bison bonasus L) have a similar morphology
(appearance), they will still generally crossbreed with cattle. In
addition, it has been discovered that the African buffalo (Syncerus
caffer) also interbreeds with them-yet the bison and cattle have been
placed in totally different genera.
7 - Corn. One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn
(sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn), while other taxonomists
acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one species.
8 - Finches. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we discuss *Charles
Darwin's finches (13, 14, 17, or 19; the count varies regarding this
look-alike bird), which he found on the Galapagos Islands. Although
about the same in size, shape and color, and together form a set of
sub-species of finches which originally came from South America, yet
Darwin called them different species-and therefore a proof of
evolution. Those finches made a strong impression on his mind.
9 - Platypus. (*#9/3 The Creature that Fits no Category*) This one is
so strange that it does not fit any category of animals.
"When zoologists examined a platypus for the first time, some
suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different animals had been
sewn together. The platypus has the fur of an otter, the tail of a
beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a
fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs and
does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the
abdomen)."-*Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 135.
INCREASING SUB-SPECIES-There are many different sub-species in some
species while there are but few for others. A key factor seems to be
the ability of the creature to travel, whether by seed, spore, or in
person.
For example, the tiny fruit flies cannot travel very far, so there are
many varieties of them. The animal with the most sub-species appears
to be the southern pocket gopher (Thomomys umbrinus) with 214
subspecies and, next to it, the northern pocket gopher (T. talpoides)
with 66. Another highly isolated species is the deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus) with 66 subspecies.
In the case of animals that have been domesticated, such as dogs,
cats, cattle, sheep, pigeons, and chickens, there are many sub-species
as a result of selective breeding. The same holds true for cultivated
crops (corn, beans, lettuce, and cabbage).
There are instances in which sub-species generally do not breed across
sub-species. The other extreme is instances in which animals above the
species level will produce young from an apparent cross-breeding. In
some cases these are true species, and should have been classified as
such. But there are also instances in which breeding did NOT
occur-although it appeared to take place! In true fertilization, the
male and female elements unite and produce young. But there are times
when two different species have been bred and young have been
produced-in which no true breeding occurred!
This false breeding takes place when the presence of male sperm
stimulates the egg to begin production on a new life-form, but the
sperm is rejected because it is from a different species. The
resulting birth is known as parthenogenesis. Scientific analysis has
established that this false breeding across true species works in
exactly the manner described here.
It is significant that mankind can never successfully breed across
with any other species, including any of the great apes.
"There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any
other mammal."-*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics, 1946, pp. 222-223.
One careful researcher (Frank Marsh) spent years tracking down every
report of crosses above that of true species. Each time he found them
to be hoaxes. One instance was of bird feathers sewn to a stuffed
animal skin. It made good copy for a newspaper article, so it was
printed.
3 - DISPROVING SPECIES EVOLUTION
MENDELIAN GENETICS-It has been said that the foundations of
evolutionary theory were laid by the work of *Charles Darwin
(1809-1882), but that the principles which Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
discovered, as he worked with garden peas at about the same time that
Darwin was writing his book, were the means of abolishing that theory.
Everyone is acquainted with the illustration of the rough and
smooth-coated guinea pigs. It was the work of Mendel that formed the
basis for understanding the transmission of inherited characteristics.
Mendel prepared the foundation for modern genetics. It was later
discovered that within the cell are chromosomes, and inside the
chromosomes are genes, and inside them is the coded DNA. (For more
information on this, see chapter 8, DNA.) Random shuffling of the
genetic code is what determines whether or not that baby guinea pig
will inherit a rough or a smooth coat from its parents. But either way
he will remain a guinea pig. Because that tiny newborn creature is
locked into being a guinea pig is the reason why Darwin's theory
crumbles before the science of genetics.
PRIMITIVE ANCESTORS-Evolutionists tell us that certain creatures are
more "primitive" than others, and are their "ancestors." But that is
just theory. Consider but one example: the monotremes and the
marsupials, which are supposed to be "primitive ancestors" of the
mammals. Both have organs that are different than mammals and just as
complex. (For an excellent analysis, see A.W. Mehlert, "A Critique of
the Alleged Reptile to Mammal Transition" in Creation Research Society
Quarterly, June 1988, p. 10.)
MANY VARIATIONS POSSIBLE-Yes, variations are limited by the species
barrier,-but immense variations are possible within a given species!
*Francisco Ayala has calculated that, among humans, a single couple
could theoretically produce 102017 children before they would have to
produce one that was identical to one of their earlier children (not
counting identical twins, which came from the same egg and sperm).
That would be 1 followed by 2017 zeroes. The number of atoms in the
known universe is only 1080. So the number of possible variations
within any given species is quite broad. Yet all of them would only be
variations within the same species.
ALWAYS A LIMIT-We discussed artificial selection in chapter 9, Natural
Selection, and found it to be highly selective plant and animal
breeding. In regard to any given single factor, selective breeding
may, for a time, be carried out; but soon a limit in factor variety
will be reached. What limits it? It is the DNA code in the genes. That
code forbids a cross-over to a new species. The genetic makeup within
the chromosomes forms a barrier, a literal wall of separation between
one species and another.
LIMITS OF VARIABILITY-This is a crucial factor. All evolutionary
theory pivots on whether or not there are such limits on how far you
can breed differences in a species. Can one species change into
another one? If there are definite limits forbidding it, then
evolution cannot occur. An evolutionary encyclopedia provides us with
a brief overview of the history of theory and "pure-line research"
into limits of variability:
"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through
gradual, continuous change, species could (in Wallace's phrase)
'depart indefinitely from the original type.' Around 1900 came the
first direct test of that proposition: the 'pure line research' of
Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen
wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with
the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small
would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they 'depart
indefinitely' from the original type, or are there built-in limits and
constraints?
"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred
the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a
steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin's theory seemed to
predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or 'pure lines') of
large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a
specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either
direction. Continued selection had no effect.
"Johnannsen's work stimulated many others to conduct similar
experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings
(1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world
authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for
body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations
selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size
of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines
remained constrained within fixed limits, 'as unyielding as iron.'
"Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940),
who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment
Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays
eggs all day long.
"He found you could breed some super-layers, but an absolute limit was
soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that
production might actually be increased by relaxing selection-by
breeding from 'lower than maximum' producers."-*R. Milner,
Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 376.
Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits
which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each
species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety
within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no
exit through that wall.
"Darwin's gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which
selection was useless."-*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990),
p. 46.
LOSS OF FITNESS-Not only is there a limiting wall that will always be
reached,-but as the researcher nears that outer wall, the subjects
being bred become weaker. The variations made within those borders do
not actually bring overall improvements in the corn, cows, and
chickens. All of the apparent improvement is made at the expense of
overall fitness for life. Gish explains why this is so:
"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these
specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic
ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals
do not compete well with the original, or wild type . . They survive
only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from
their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other
conditions are carefully regulated."-Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge
of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.
"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best
demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that
have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by
a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions, and only the
fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural
conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."-*O.S. Falconer,
introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186.
GENE DEPLETION-The scientific name for this loss of fitness through
adaptation is gene depletion. According to this principle, selective
breeding always weakens a species-and never strengthens it.
"[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for
genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from
developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such
variations are always characterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of
individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of
thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful
mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through the
passage of time are always within strict boundary lines."-John C.
Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 94.
In chapter 10, Mutations, we mentioned the genetic load, mentioned in
the above quotation.
The original stock was strong, but as it branched out into variations
within its kind, it became weakened. That is gene depletion. In
addition, with the passing of time, genes are damaged through random
radiation and mutations occur. Such mutations are also weakening, and
gradually a genetic load is built up.
Thus we see that, on one hand, the farther the species strays from its
central original pattern, the weaker it becomes (gene depletion). On
the other, as the centuries continue on, mutational weaknesses
increase in all varieties of a given species (genetic load).
The total picture is not one of evolving upward, strengthening,
improving, or changing into new and diverse species.
EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW-It is an astounding fact that
evolutionary theory, if true, could only produce ever weaker creatures
with continually narrowed adaptive traits. A Dutch zoologist, *J.J.
Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended from animal
ancestors, "man should possess a smaller gene-potential than his
animal ancestors!" (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the
Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), pp. 56, 57.)
-- end quote

sorry, cindy, i was unaware that all worms
were the same species. the several thousand different species and
genera that scientists assign all the different worms to threw me

off!
"Polychaetes are one of three traditional Classes of worms in the
Phylum Annelida (the ring worms). The other two traditional Classes
of Annelids, the Class Oligochaeta (the earthworms) and the Class
Hirudinida (the leeches) are the subject of some debate, but many worm
biologists now consider both these groups to be sub-classes of the
Class Clitellata (Rouse and Pleijel 2001). As with most groups of
marine organisms, the taxonomy of annelid worms is a subject of
on-going research, and the exact relationships among the groups is yet
to be resolved" - Rob Toonen PHD in Sept 2002 "Advanced Aquarist".

cindy still hasnt dealt with the fact that worms show more genetic
diversity than exists between humans and chimpanzees. if all worms

are

the same species, then cindy must accept that humans evolved from
chimpanzees.

That is ridiculous, that isn't even taught as evolution as far as I
know.

i am not the one failing to answer to evidence andrew, you and

cindy

are. you have left many pieces of evidence unanswered, and you

have

presented exactly zero evidence of your own.

Without me even asking, you claimed you could provide fossil

evidence,

between one species and another, then attacked me for not

accepting

your challenge, so I then, in deference to your wishes, asked you

address the links between land mammals and whales: and short

necked

mammals and giraffes, where is this evidence?

i GAVE you the evidence for the whale group. you snipped it and it
disappeared in your response!

It's not a conspiracy, I already said we could discuss that next, did
you answer?
I am still waiting for your response about the giraffes, did I miss
something?

as for giraffes, you DID NOT ask for "short necked mammals and
giraffes." you just asked for "giraffes."

The truth is: I asked where their long necks came from and where were
the transitional fossils. I have repeated this how many times now?
"Also I would like to know about giraffes, what came before them? how
did they get such long necks. and where are the transitional fossils?"
Now you are just making many excuses and accusations AND instead of
admitting you have no answer to that question you are saying "SO
WHAT!, and falsely claiming I changed what I asked for.

despite the fact that every
single part of a giraffe is accounted for except for its long neck,

you

continue to maintain that it could not evolve. why? if every other

part

of a giraffe is documented in the fossil record, what is preventing

its

neck from stretching? you have yet to even attempt to address this.

Why ask all these questions when you haven't addressed mine yet, why
claim all is accounted for when you have accounted for nothing? okapi
and giraffes live side by side and you claim one came from the other,
where is the DNA evidence as they are both alive? Where are the
transitionals between them, oh I forgot, you said "so what if none
have ever been found!"

I am lazy according to you because you are stumped and cannot

provide

proof as you claimed, and are unable to admit that?

I informed you already, I have many more questions...

~ Cindy

you are lazy because i said i would name the fossils, not that i

would

give you college courses on them. i met the challenge by naming the
fossils. if you want to learn about them in detail, go to a library

a museum. thats why your taxes are paying for them, after all.

stumped he is...
~ Cindy
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	15 Feb 2005 03:08:11 PM

Just one representative example of the amazing
dishonesty of anti-evolutionists:
Cindy wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108247272.705829.81090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Cindy wrote:

"snex" <snex@comcast.ne t> wrote in message
news:1108244022.934442.285570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.co m...

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

[...]

Here are some as recorded in a section of one chaper from " The
evolution Cruncher":

Why the species barrier

Evolution is based on change from one species to another.

No it isn't.
In chapters

9 and 10, Natural Selection and Mutations, we have found that ther e

no mechanism by which it can occur;

Note that this false assertion is based on the straw man
lie that evolution says that, for example, dogs turn into sheep.
And _that_ is based on the false belief that all worms,
flies, birds, fish etc are the same "kind" AND by the
convenient and false claim that "kinds" means the same
thing as "species." Once again anti-evolutionists only
have a case if they are allowed to define scientific
terms any way they want--as they insist they have the
right to do. Anti-evolutionists are control freaks. Arrogant
control freaks at that.
But this isn't what I was referring to at the top. Keep
reading. It gets much worse.

and in chapter 12, Fossils and
Strata, we will learn that there is no past evidenc e of such change.

Nonsense.

The fact that all plant and animal true species are distinct types is
a crux in the entire controversy.

Nonsense.

So we will here devote a full
chapter to speciation. This material will help fill out the picture

what we are learning in other chapters.

DARWIN ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES-The battle over evolutionary
theory finds its center in the species. This is where *Charles Darwin
attempted to fight it, but without success. Even though he called his
first book by that name,he never did try to figure out the origin of
the species.

His book was Origin of Species, not "the origin
of the species." Can't even get that right, can you?
[...]
Here is what I was referring to:

"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days,
gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his
evolutionary speculation and wrote: 'As by this theory, innumerable
transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them

embedded

in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead
of being, as we see them, well defined species?"-H. Enoch, Evolution
or Creation (1966), p. 139.

The first part (ending with "earth?") is from chapter
6 and the second part--what follows "earth?"--comes
from chapter 9 of The Origin of Species! What this
dishonest putz, who put the two together, left out was
Darwin's answer to his own question: Why do we
not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?
This is--and can only be--intentional dishonesty and
deception. Don't anti-evolutionists have any shame?
Note also that this dishonest putz quotes Darwins first
book on the subject (Origins of Species) while implying
deceptively, that it is something from Darwin "in his
later days" These people really do have no shame.
This is the kind of putz that Cindy puts her faith in.
She has obviously not read Origin and much prefers
to quote dishonest anti-evolutionists. And I'm betting
that her source's dishonesty won't phase her a bit.
.

User: "Andrew"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 04:01:05 PM

"snex" wrote in message news:1108244022.934442.285570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this case,
but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

pointing out dishonesty is not an adhominem.

Please do as you wish, but your case is strengthened in the minds of others if
you simply point out the fallacy or discrepancies of your opponents position
rather than making judgmental remarks.
Andrew
.

User: "snex"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 04:12:54 PM

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108244022.934442.285570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this

case,

but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

pointing out dishonesty is not an adhominem.

Please do as you wish, but your case is strengthened in the minds of

others if

you simply point out the fallacy or discrepancies of your opponents

position

rather than making judgmental remarks.

Andrew

are you saying that dishonesty is not a fallacy or discrepancy in
cindy's position? is it ok because its "lying for god?"
.

User: "Cindy"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 04:16:23 PM

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1108246374.658945.98890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108244022.934442.285570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Andrew wrote:

"snex" wrote in message

news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in

this

case,

but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is

weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

pointing out dishonesty is not an adhominem.

Please do as you wish, but your case is strengthened in the minds

others if

you simply point out the fallacy or discrepancies of your

opponents

position

rather than making judgmental remarks.

Andrew

are you saying that dishonesty is not a fallacy or discrepancy in
cindy's position? is it ok because its "lying for god?"

Please quote me, and then provide the proof that I am lying so I can
see what you are talking about.
Please note, I am not interested in what you "think" i said or meant,
I want facts.
Honest people will too.
~ Cindy
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	12 Feb 2005 05:26:55 PM

In alt.atheism on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:26:47 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:

"snex" wrote in message news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this case,
but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

...such as calling evolution a hoax. That's an ad hominem attack
on facts.
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	12 Feb 2005 04:04:53 PM

In article <377aklF55fijgU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:

"snex" wrote in message
news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this case,
but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html

Which is , no doubt, why Pastor Dave uses it.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	13 Feb 2005 01:35:40 AM

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:26:47 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:

"snex" wrote in message news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this case,
but its all over the thread for everybody to see.

"Ad hominem

Stating facts not used as an argument isn't ad hominem.
--
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	13 Feb 2005 05:17:00 AM

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:26:47 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:

"snex" wrote in message news:1108226700.947828.61180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

and make no mistake cindy, you are dishonest. maybe not in this case,
but its all over the