Religions > Atheism > talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2003 05:02:23 AM |
| Object: |
talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
a few interesting comments:
How did feathers evolved? we don't know.
Ovoraptor food: science must take their best guest.
Did the Rex hunt in goups?: the Jury is still out.
horned dinosaurs: "previous hypothesis full of holes"
yup evolution is a fact of certain unknowns eh?
and this it what is taught as undeniable facts... yup.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
16 Dec 2003 04:49:10 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in message
news:3DBDb.3320051$Of.517067@news.easynews.com...
: yup evolution is a fact of certain unknowns eh?
: and this it what is taught as undeniable facts... yup.
===================
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes, demons
attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts? LOL!!!! ;-D
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
16 Dec 2003 05:24:31 PM |
|
|
"=^@..@^=" <noGB@Paradise.net> wrote in message
news:UIOdnQrCVqR7FkKiRVn-ug@heartoftn.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in message
news:3DBDb.3320051$Of.517067@news.easynews.com...
: yup evolution is a fact of certain unknowns eh?
: and this it what is taught as undeniable facts... yup.
===================
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes, demons
attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts? LOL!!!! ;-D
--
So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one speculation
and mythology for others..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
16 Dec 2003 11:15:44 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in message
news:PuMDb.3361709$Of.523306@news.easynews.com...
:
: "=^@..@^=" <noGB@Paradise.net> wrote in message
: > But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes,
demons
: > attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts? LOL!!!! ;-D
=========:
: So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one
speculation
: and mythology for others..
** I'm glad you AGREE that the Bible blather is mere speculation and
mythology.... maybe you're getting somewhere now. :-)
--
Kelly Grean......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
16 Dec 2003 06:15:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:24:31 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net>
wrote:
"=^@..@^=" <noGB@Paradise.net> wrote in message
news:UIOdnQrCVqR7FkKiRVn-ug@heartoftn.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in message
news:3DBDb.3320051$Of.517067@news.easynews.com...
: yup evolution is a fact of certain unknowns eh?
: and this it what is taught as undeniable facts... yup.
===================
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes, demons
attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts? LOL!!!! ;-D
--
So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one speculation
and mythology for others..
So you're admitting that the bible is speculation and mythology?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
17 Dec 2003 04:55:29 AM |
|
|
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:qu7vtvooc8i3qk9fq1v54a3aed3811t4mt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:24:31 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net>
wrote:
"=^@..@^=" <noGB@Paradise.net> wrote in message
news:UIOdnQrCVqR7FkKiRVn-ug@heartoftn.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in message
news:3DBDb.3320051$Of.517067@news.easynews.com...
: yup evolution is a fact of certain unknowns eh?
: and this it what is taught as undeniable facts... yup.
===================
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes,
demons
attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts? LOL!!!! ;-D
--
So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one
speculation
and mythology for others..
So you're admitting that the bible is speculation and mythology?
I am saying that people are going to call events as they wish them to be
called.
is the bible is full of myth. no better is the theory of evolution, which
is exactly that theory..
religion as evolution rely on faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
17 Dec 2003 05:36:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:55:29 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net>
wrote:
I am saying that people are going to call events as they wish them to be
called.
is the bible is full of myth. no better is the theory of evolution, which
is exactly that theory..
....which shows you ignorance about science. Theories, from a
scientific standpoint, are derived from a certain protocol that is
followed with regard to known facts. What theories based on WTBS facts
can possibly be formed if they keep changing their doctrine?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
17 Dec 2003 09:23:35 PM |
|
|
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2lf0uvclamu8g7jaim964c6gh26cqn1ou4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:55:29 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net>
wrote:
I am saying that people are going to call events as they wish them to be
called.
is the bible is full of myth. no better is the theory of evolution,
which
is exactly that theory..
...which shows you ignorance about science. Theories, from a
scientific standpoint, are derived from a certain protocol that is
followed with regard to known facts
which is called the scientific method. and evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
.. What theories based on WTBS facts
can possibly be formed if they keep changing their doctrine?
totaly unrelated argument. the watchtower is not a science institution, and
it have never claimed to be one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
18 Dec 2003 06:27:59 PM |
|
|
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
19 Dec 2003 08:02:57 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
20 Dec 2003 12:18:08 PM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
You've been asking this question since at least November 1997:
http://tinyurl.com/ywvdj
and getting polite, useful abundant information about how to find out
every time you asked. How do you explain you are still asking it six
years later?
Here's a cornucopia of information (and it isn't even the talk.origins
archives):
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/education/anthropologyevolution.htm
here's a .edu site with further informaiton:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/links.htm
Now do you have evidence to show that the scientists are wrong, that
humans did not evolve? If you have solid scientific evidence, then
post references or URLs to it here. Or is this yet another sample
from your bottomless pit of argument from incredulity?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
19 Dec 2003 08:59:24 AM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:02:57 -0800 didst JaBrIoL speak thusly:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
I've watched people try to explain things to you for *years.
There's obviously--so far as your brain goes--no "there" there...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
19 Dec 2003 08:30:51 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living organisms on
earth have a common ancestor. These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich source of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the 19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
20 Dec 2003 03:24:41 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich source of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the 19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved into
another.
it is speculated.
did you read the question I ask zecheriel?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
20 Dec 2003 09:04:38 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<t63Fb.2624191$be.407021@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich source of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the 19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved into
another.
There is. It is called reproduction.
it is speculated.
did you read the question I ask zecheriel?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
21 Dec 2003 09:32:48 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:md3auv86av2c6pgi19g7gutra92q0ds4mm@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<t63Fb.2624191$be.407021@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak
thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich source
of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the 19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved into
another.
There is. It is called reproduction.
ok, I see.. a goat gives birth to a ram.. got it.
it is speculated.
did you read the question I ask zecheriel?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
21 Dec 2003 11:31:07 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<A2jFb.3704108$Of.582027@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:md3auv86av2c6pgi19g7gutra92q0ds4mm@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<t63Fb.2624191$be.407021@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak
thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich source
of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the 19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved into
another.
There is. It is called reproduction.
ok, I see.. a goat gives birth to a ram.. got it.
Your foolishness is available for all to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
22 Dec 2003 10:39:15 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<o5mbuvst8q5lvmt06hi6c0f7p1049bmgi6@4ax.com>...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<A2jFb.3704108$Of.582027@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:md3auv86av2c6pgi19g7gutra92q0ds4mm@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<t63Fb.2624191$be.407021@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak
thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich source
of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the 19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved into
another.
There is. It is called reproduction.
ok, I see.. a goat gives birth to a ram.. got it.
Your foolishness is available for all to see.
your implying that reproduction is where macro evolution occurs, and
this has yet to be observed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mrs. Gawd A. Mitey" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
22 Dec 2003 03:40:30 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0312220839.65c4cfa9@posting.google.com...
: your implying that reproduction is where macro evolution occurs, and
: this has yet to be observed.
======================
You're implying a magical "creation" and that also has yet to be observed.
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
22 Dec 2003 07:20:22 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312220839.65c4cfa9@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<o5mbuvst8q5lvmt06hi6c0f7p1049bmgi6@4ax.com>...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<A2jFb.3704108$Of.582027@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:md3auv86av2c6pgi19g7gutra92q0ds4mm@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<t63Fb.2624191$be.407021@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol speak
thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich source
of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the 19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved into
another.
There is. It is called reproduction.
ok, I see.. a goat gives birth to a ram.. got it.
Your foolishness is available for all to see.
your implying that reproduction is where macro evolution occurs, and
this has yet to be observed.
Evolution is evolution. It has been observed. Your lies have become
boringly repetitious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
22 Dec 2003 08:16:32 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:gu5fuv0t4jlp05t4mnkerdhc1979ji4o74@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312220839.65c4cfa9@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:<o5mbuvst8q5lvmt06hi6c0f7p1049bmgi6@4ax.com>...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<A2jFb.3704108$Of.582027@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:md3auv86av2c6pgi19g7gutra92q0ds4mm@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<t63Fb.2624191$be.407021@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol
speak
thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have
refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living
organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most
studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic
sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich
source
of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as
far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been
the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the
19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots
focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather
than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If
fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved
into
another.
There is. It is called reproduction.
ok, I see.. a goat gives birth to a ram.. got it.
Your foolishness is available for all to see.
your implying that reproduction is where macro evolution occurs, and
this has yet to be observed.
Evolution is evolution. It has been observed. Your lies have become
boringly repetitious.
as the origin of man it has not. an any reputable scientist will tell you
so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
22 Dec 2003 10:41:44 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<4ANFb.2786601$be.436317@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:gu5fuv0t4jlp05t4mnkerdhc1979ji4o74@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312220839.65c4cfa9@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:<o5mbuvst8q5lvmt06hi6c0f7p1049bmgi6@4ax.com>...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<A2jFb.3704108$Of.582027@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:md3auv86av2c6pgi19g7gutra92q0ds4mm@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<t63Fb.2624191$be.407021@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol
speak
thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have
refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living
organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most
studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic
sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich
source
of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as
far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been
the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the
19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots
focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather
than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If
fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved
into
another.
There is. It is called reproduction.
ok, I see.. a goat gives birth to a ram.. got it.
Your foolishness is available for all to see.
your implying that reproduction is where macro evolution occurs, and
this has yet to be observed.
Evolution is evolution. It has been observed. Your lies have become
boringly repetitious.
as the origin of man it has not.
What? What other possible way could man have come to exist?
an any reputable scientist will tell you so.
Balderdash.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
23 Dec 2003 06:01:29 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<rqhfuvc0ajldd1qnbn80nijfllcrtrt0ad@4ax.com>...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<4ANFb.2786601$be.436317@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:gu5fuv0t4jlp05t4mnkerdhc1979ji4o74@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312220839.65c4cfa9@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:<o5mbuvst8q5lvmt06hi6c0f7p1049bmgi6@4ax.com>...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<A2jFb.3704108$Of.582027@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:md3auv86av2c6pgi19g7gutra92q0ds4mm@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<t63Fb.2624191$be.407021@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5e26uv48jmhvthcrlm8nrq887ph51p96h0@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312190602.bb6594f@posting.google.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.12.19.00.27.58.687712@sig.below>...
And so upon Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:23:35 +0000 didst jabriol
speak
thusly:
evolution as the origin of man,
does not pass the scientific method.
As if you'd know.
do you?
you can explain it if you like..
Many people have tried to explain it to you before. You have
refused to
learn.
There are different sets of evidence that show that living
organisms on
earth have a common ancestor.
no denial here
These are genetic, structural, relational
in place and relational in time. The first has become the most
studied,
both because the technology has arrived that allows genetic
sequencing
and matching among species and because it is an extremely rich
source
of
data. The second and third were being studied by scientists as
far back
as Linnaeus in a formal fashion and the third seems to have been
the
kickstart for Darwin, Wallace and others in the middle of the
19th
century. The fourth is the one that the anti-science zealots
focus on,
acting as if fossils are the only evidence of evolution rather
than the
least important (but extremely interesting) evidence. If
fossilization
never occured, evolution would still have been discovered.
What questions do you have about this?
because there is no direct observation, that one lifeform evolved
into
another.
There is. It is called reproduction.
ok, I see.. a goat gives birth to a ram.. got it.
Your foolishness is available for all to see.
your implying that reproduction is where macro evolution occurs, and
this has yet to be observed.
Evolution is evolution. It has been observed. Your lies have become
boringly repetitious.
as the origin of man it has not.
What? What other possible way could man have come to exist?
Many different ways no doubt, including being dropped off :-)
the point is, via the scientific method, you can not claim that man is
an evolved creature from an inferior life form, unless you can see
life forms evolving to another. or at least enhance it.
therefore evolution as the orign of man, is base on faith, just as
"god did it"
is based on faith..
you just have two set of evidence mutually exclusive, one rejected by
one grou to the next.
ever heard of the Manpanzee?
an any reputable scientist will tell you so.
Balderdash.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
23 Dec 2003 07:38:35 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312230401.4738cf44@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<rqhfuvc0ajldd1qnbn80nijfllcrtrt0ad@4ax.com>...
....
What? What other possible way could man have come to exist?
Many different ways no doubt, including being dropped off :-)
But there is only evidence for common descent.
the point is, via the scientific method, you can not claim that man is
an evolved creature from an inferior life form, unless you can see
life forms evolving to another. or at least enhance it.
But there is evidence for common descent. The fact that you are
unwilling to acknowledge that because of your religious prejudices does
not make the evidence go away.
therefore evolution as the orign of man, is base on faith, just as
"god did it"
is based on faith..
No, there is evidence for common descent. You keep ignoring that.
you just have two set of evidence mutually exclusive, one rejected by
one grou to the next.
Common descent has evidence to support it. Your claims do not.
ever heard of the Manpanzee?
Is that your name for the common ancestor of man and chimp?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
23 Dec 2003 01:21:32 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:q5hguvka1queqaqmum9de7f4o0ccree9fb@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312230401.4738cf44@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:<rqhfuvc0ajldd1qnbn80nijfllcrtrt0ad@4ax.com>...
...
What? What other possible way could man have come to exist?
Many different ways no doubt, including being dropped off :-)
But there is only evidence for common descent.
there is evidence no doubt. Is it common decent? that is what I question?
I knew of a young man, who looked like his father, acted like his father,
had traits like his father.. to you and to me.. like father like son. until
a genetic test proved that his father was not his father. this came about
when in marital spat his mother confessed as a youth she scrwed her husband
best friend.
Evidence, even genetic ones, is interpreted by the eye of the beholder like
beauty is. if this man parent didn't have this squable.. he would have never
known.
scientist talk about common decent. because other options are not so easy to
explain. sometime it is it ignore.. like Scott Sampson comments on the
origin of feathers..
the point is, via the scientific method, you can not claim that man is
an evolved creature from an inferior life form, unless you can see
life forms evolving to another. or at least enhance it.
But there is evidence for common descent. The fact that you are
unwilling to acknowledge that because of your religious prejudices does
not make the evidence go away.
as I mention above.. I don't question the evidence. I question what science
is calling said evidence. there is a differance.
you just have two set of evidence mutually exclusive, one rejected by
one grou to the next.
Common descent has evidence to support it. Your claims do not.
as I mentioned.. you do not accept my claim, because you do not wish to
I dont even think you know what my claims are :-)
ever heard of the Manpanzee?
Is that your name for the common ancestor of man and chimp?
more my name of a decendant. if man is 98% genticly compatible with a chimp
it should be no problem bringout a hybrid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
23 Dec 2003 02:35:46 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<%A0Gb.3777059$Id.606691@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:q5hguvka1queqaqmum9de7f4o0ccree9fb@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, (JaBrIoL) wrote in
<d222de3e.0312230401.4738cf44@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:<rqhfuvc0ajldd1qnbn80nijfllcrtrt0ad@4ax.com>...
...
What? What other possible way could man have come to exist?
Many different ways no doubt, including being dropped off :-)
But there is only evidence for common descent.
there is evidence no doubt. Is it common decent? that is what I question?
Your questions show nothing more than a lack of understanding of the
evidence. Being proud of your ignorance is not a goal that should be
sought, even if you cloak your ignorance in religious doctrine.
I knew of a young man, who looked like his father, acted like his father,
had traits like his father.. to you and to me.. like father like son. until
a genetic test proved that his father was not his father. this came about
when in marital spat his mother confessed as a youth she scrwed her husband
best friend.
Evidence, even genetic ones, is interpreted by the eye of the beholder like
beauty is. if this man parent didn't have this squable.. he would have never
known.
scientist talk about common decent. because other options are not so easy to
explain. sometime it is it ignore.. like Scott Sampson comments on the
origin of feathers..
the point is, via the scientific method, you can not claim that man is
an evolved creature from an inferior life form, unless you can see
life forms evolving to another. or at least enhance it.
But there is evidence for common descent. The fact that you are
unwilling to acknowledge that because of your religious prejudices does
not make the evidence go away.
as I mention above.. I don't question the evidence. I question what science
is calling said evidence. there is a differance.
you just have two set of evidence mutually exclusive, one rejected by
one grou to the next.
Common descent has evidence to support it. Your claims do not.
as I mentioned.. you do not accept my claim, because you do not wish to
I dont even think you know what my claims are :-)
ever heard of the Manpanzee?
Is that your name for the common ancestor of man and chimp?
more my name of a decendant. if man is 98% genticly compatible with a chimp
it should be no problem bringout a hybrid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
16 Dec 2003 05:33:13 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach jabriol:
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes,
demons attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts? LOL!!!!
;-D --
So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one
speculation and mythology for others..
Evolution? Evidence.
Religion? No evidence.
Your choice.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
17 Dec 2003 04:53:25 AM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:945392662blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach jabriol:
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes,
demons attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts? LOL!!!!
;-D --
So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one
speculation and mythology for others..
Evolution? Evidence.
Religion? No evidence.
Your choice.
Evolution does not even pass the scientific method. Evidence is in the eye
of the person who wish to call it thus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
17 Dec 2003 07:57:57 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<FAWDb.3319989$Id.527421@news.easynews.com>:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:945392662blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach jabriol:
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes,
demons attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts? LOL!!!!
;-D --
So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one
speculation and mythology for others..
Evolution? Evidence.
Religion? No evidence.
Your choice.
Evolution does not even pass the scientific method. Evidence is in the eye
of the person who wish to call it thus.
Why do you tell lies like this? Of course evolution was a discovery of
science and the scientific method was used and continues to be used as
we learn more about evolution. It's too bad that you force yourself to
tell these lies and libel scientists because of your religion. No gods
could possibly want that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
17 Dec 2003 09:24:51 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:r3o0uv46gvv9hfbsrgaimk65m2panpmr02@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<FAWDb.3319989$Id.527421@news.easynews.com>:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:945392662blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach jabriol:
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes,
demons attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts?
LOL!!!!
;-D --
So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one
speculation and mythology for others..
Evolution? Evidence.
Religion? No evidence.
Your choice.
Evolution does not even pass the scientific method. Evidence is in the
eye
of the person who wish to call it thus.
Why do you tell lies like this? Of course evolution was a discovery of
science and the scientific method was used and continues to be used as
we learn more about evolution
how does evolution of the origin of man pass the scientific method?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: talk.origins banned subject: Dinosaur planet\ real scientist..scott sampsom comments |
17 Dec 2003 11:14:59 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<769Eb.3366752$Id.530721@news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:r3o0uv46gvv9hfbsrgaimk65m2panpmr02@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <jabriol@cymech.net> wrote in
<FAWDb.3319989$Id.527421@news.easynews.com>:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:945392662blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach jabriol:
But pregnant virgins, talking animals, sticks turning into snakes,
demons attacking pigs and people walking on water are facts?
LOL!!!!
;-D --
So this justify the theory of evolution.. yes we see.. trade one
speculation and mythology for others..
Evolution? Evidence.
Religion? No evidence.
Your choice.
Evolution does not even pass the scientific method. Evidence is in the
eye
of the person who wish to call it thus.
Why do you tell lies like this? Of course evolution was a discovery of
science and the scientific method was used and continues to be used as
we learn more about evolution
how does evolution of the origin of man pass the scientific method?
The evolution of man was discovered using the scientific method. Your
question seems to make no sense.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
