| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2003 06:27:28 PM |
| Object: |
TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth's
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence of the
varieties of life that existed long before man's arrival. But they have not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or
how new kinds got started thereafter. Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions
of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved
from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. "Fish jump into the
fossil record," Hitching says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously,
suddenly, full formed." Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
.
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
13 Sep 2003 11:27:36 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth's
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence of the
varieties of life that existed long before man's arrival. But they have not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
First off, Goober, evolution doesn't speak to "how life
began." That is a common straw man attack on evolution.
Second, you second claim is flatly wrong, as you might
have discovered if you investigated what science says
about evolution instead of taking the word of a TV
script writer with NO scientific credentials whatsoever.
Your pet source, Francis Hitching:
Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
.....is also a liar. He claimed to be a member
of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an
inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the
"Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing
of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him
and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that
his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon
inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis
Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a
charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe,
is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for
years."
Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan
pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on
BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors,
Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for
Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of
the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth
Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An
Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the
Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.
Hitching's book spends much of its time attacking Darwinian
evolution, borrowing heavily and uncritically from young-
earth creationist arguments. Many of Hitching's "references"
are lifted from young-earth creationist literature rather
than being quoted directly from their original sources. One
magazine had this to say [Creation/Evolution Newsletter, 7,
No. 5, pp. 15-16, September/October 1987]:
Speaking of the Biblical Creation Society, there was an
interesting letter in the January 1983 issue of their
journal Biblical Creation (p. 74) concerning a review of
Francis Hitching's 1982 book The Neck of the Giraffe.
Hitching's book is strongly anti- Darwinist, and is
enthusiastically hailed by most creationists (though he also
pokes fun at fundamentalist creationists). The letter, by
creationist Malcolm Bowden (author of The Rise of the
Evolution Fraud), points out that Hitching simply "culled
his information from the creationist literature." This is
indeed the case: many creationist works are cited favorably
(Anderson, Coffin, Clark, Daly, Davidheiser, Dewar, Gish,
Morris, Segraves, Whitcomb, and Wysong, plus various anti-
Darwinists). Hitching does cite Bowden's earlier book Ape-
Men -- Fact or Fallacy?, but Bowden accuses Hitching of
"lifting" several passages and illustrations from his book
without acknowledgment: in other words, plagiarism.
"Hitchin's [sic] book is largely an exposition of the
creationists [sic] viewpoint from the beginning to almost
the end," Bowden points out.... Hitching is also a
paranormalist, an advocate of psychic evolution....
[Hitching's book] Earth Magic is a wild, extremely
entertaining and thoroughly psychic interpretation of
megalithic structures.... Hitching also includes in his
scheme cosmic cataclysms, Atlantis, pyramidology, dowsing,
ESP, miraculous healing, and astrology.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html
The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions
of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved
from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. "Fish jump into the
fossil record," Hitching says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously,
suddenly, full formed."
Nonsense.
Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
One grossly out of context quote without a citation!
Boy, I'm convinced!
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
13 Sep 2003 12:13:37 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309130827.671b6ef1@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the
evolutionary
theory
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the
earth's
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have
infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence of
the
varieties of life that existed long before man's arrival. But they have
not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life
began or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
First off, Goober, evolution doesn't speak to "how life
began." That is a common straw man attack on evolution.
No it is not.. abiogenesis was linked, until the failures of the Miller
experiments.
you do know about this right?
Second, you second claim is flatly wrong, as you might
have discovered if you investigated what science says
about evolution instead of taking the word of a TV
script writer with NO scientific credentials whatsoever.
Your pet source, Francis Hitching:
snip..... we all know about the intent to discredit Hitching because he is a
non conformist evolutionist..
Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
One grossly out of context quote without a citation!
Boy, I'm convinced!
If you followed the thread you know the ref was given.. but feel free to
tell us why it was out of context..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
14 Sep 2003 12:31:13 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<5fI8b.4240403$mA4.592668@news.easynews.com>...
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309130827.671b6ef1@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
[...]
First off, Goober, evolution doesn't speak to "how life
began." That is a common straw man attack on evolution.
No it is not..
Well yes it is. I've seen it used many times over the
last decade and usually it is insisted upon with the
fatuous implication that theistic-anti-evolutionists
get to tell science what the definition of evolution is
or includes. If you promise to show some contrition for
making your reckless claim I will post some examples of
TAE's doing just exactly what I describe.
abiogenesis was linked, until the failures of the Miller
experiments.
No. The definition can not and could not support any
hypothesis about the creation of life. If you think
otherwise, by all means post that portion of the theory
you think applies. (Cite your sources with verifiable
references please--unlike what you have done here so
far) Theists like to link the two because in their
religion the creation of life and the diversity of life
are linked.
Regardless, even if you were right ("abiogenesis was
linked") you admit by implication that you had no
business accusing science of not explaining bio genesis
since you admit it is not now part of any evolution
theory. And yet I see no contrition or retraction for
your false accusation. Why not?
you do know about this right?
See what I mean about your utter failure to cite
verifiable references? Or gosh, the "Miller
experiments." That narrows it down, doesn't it?
Second, you second claim is flatly wrong, as you might
have discovered if you investigated what science says
about evolution instead of taking the word of a TV
script writer with NO scientific credentials whatsoever.
Your pet source, Francis Hitching:
snip..... we all know about the intent to discredit Hitching because he is a
non conformist evolutionist..
Hey Bubba, it was YOU who brought up and cited Hitching
and "credited" him as an authority, not me. But since
YOU did bring him up it is valid to question--with
facts and evidence: something you ought to try--your
implied claim of authority for him. Obviously you
couldn't deal with the embarrassment of the results of
that inquiry.
For instance I notice you failed to address the point
that he is no scientist, and that he has been caught
more than once lying about his credentials. Embarrassed
or not, it is not very honest of you to delete this
damning information and then claim criticism of him is
due to him being "non conformist." Didn't you mama
teach you any better than this?
It is also dishonest for you to quote a non-scientist,
who holds fringe beliefs about evolution, as
authoritative while ignoring manistream science. But I
urge you to continue in this vein since it does such a
number on whatever shards of credibility you might
still retain.
Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
One grossly out of context quote without a citation!
Boy, I'm convinced!
If you followed the thread you know the ref was given..
If I followed the thread??? I quoted the VERY FIRST
POST in the thread--YOURS. And there was no citation.
You're one of these dOOds who can never admit to any
error aren't you?
but feel free to
tell us why it was out of context..
Hahahahahahahaha! Ok I will:
"In a sense this account is science fiction."
In what sense? What account is? What is he calling
science fiction and why? Geeze, Louise. That you think
this sentence needs no context speaks volumes about
your (lack of) judgment and about the (un)importance
you place on accuracy.
After your exercises in deception, that you would
suppose that merely telling us what the context was
would be acceptable shows me just how far out of touch
with reality you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
14 Sep 2003 03:31:40 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309140931.48ff4f02@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<5fI8b.4240403$mA4.592668@news.easynews.com>...
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309130827.671b6ef1@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
[...]
First off, Goober, evolution doesn't speak to "how life
began." That is a common straw man attack on evolution.
No it is not..
Well yes it is. I've seen it used many times over the
last decade and usually it is insisted upon with the
fatuous implication that theistic-anti-evolutionists
get to tell science what the definition of evolution is
or includes. If you promise to show some contrition for
making your reckless claim I will post some examples of
TAE's doing just exactly what I describe.
for life to evolve it must have a start or do you claim that life has always
existed?
and what evidence do you have that life, evovlving life is unique to our
little world?
abiogenesis was linked, until the failures of the Miller
experiments.
No. The definition can not and could not support any
hypothesis about the creation of life.
who is talking about creation? do not put words into my mouth.. so to
speak...
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with creation.
I snip the rest, because of your assumption that abiogenesis is creation, it
make the rest of your argument moot. try another angle..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
13 Sep 2003 05:20:16 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<5fI8b.4240403$mA4.592668@news.easynews.com>...
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309130827.671b6ef1@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the
evolutionary
theory
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the
earth's
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have
infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence of
the
varieties of life that existed long before man's arrival. But they have
not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life
began or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
First off, Goober, evolution doesn't speak to "how life
began." That is a common straw man attack on evolution.
No it is not.. abiogenesis was linked, until the failures of the Miller
experiments.
you do know about this right?
No, it never was part of evolutionary theory. Perhaps it will be soem
day; when we understand how abiogenesis occured we may see it as a
simliar process of natural selection; a continuum from molecule to
mouse. But not yet.
Second, you second claim is flatly wrong, as you might
have discovered if you investigated what science says
about evolution instead of taking the word of a TV
script writer with NO scientific credentials whatsoever.
Your pet source, Francis Hitching:
snip..... we all know about the intent to discredit Hitching because he is a
non conformist evolutionist..
He is not "discredited" so much as he was never credible: he is not a
scientist and does not do science. With neither training nor
scientific method at hand, there is no reason to pay attention to his
plagiarizing rants.
He is a TV script writer who found more money selling books to the
gullible than in selling his scripts to suits.
We also know he lies - i.e. his false claims regarding being a member
of an archaeological society, collaborating with Gould, and approval
by Dawkins.
Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
One grossly out of context quote without a citation!
Boy, I'm convinced!
If you followed the thread you know the ref was given.. but feel free to
tell us why it was out of context..
I, for one, would like to see the complete paragraph, or several
sentences before and after this quote. These mined quotes *always are
ancient, lies, out of context, or quotes of non-biologists.
--- Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
13 Sep 2003 05:49:13 PM |
|
|
"Kermit" <freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1575bfdc.0309131420.70654b37@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<5fI8b.4240403$mA4.592668@news.easynews.com>...
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309130827.671b6ef1@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the
evolutionary
theory
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the
earth's
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth
or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was
once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain
their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have
infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence
of
the
varieties of life that existed long before man's arrival. But they
have
not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life
began or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
First off, Goober, evolution doesn't speak to "how life
began." That is a common straw man attack on evolution.
No it is not.. abiogenesis was linked, until the failures of the Miller
experiments.
you do know about this right?
No, it never was part of evolutionary theory. Perhaps it will be soem
day; when we understand how abiogenesis occured we may see it as a
simliar process of natural selection; a continuum from molecule to
mouse. But not yet.
It was part of it.. and in many ways still is..
Second, you second claim is flatly wrong, as you might
have discovered if you investigated what science says
about evolution instead of taking the word of a TV
script writer with NO scientific credentials whatsoever.
Your pet source, Francis Hitching:
snip..... we all know about the intent to discredit Hitching because he
is a
non conformist evolutionist..
He is not "discredited" so much as he was never credible: he is not a
scientist and does not do science. With neither training nor
scientific method at hand, there is no reason to pay attention to his
plagiarizing rants.
he still regards himself an evolutionist.. and that was the point.
he published a book, and the book was accepted...
He is a TV script writer who found more money selling books to the
gullible than in selling his scripts to suits.
We also know he lies - i.e. his false claims regarding being a member
of an archaeological society, collaborating with Gould, and approval
by Dawkins.
Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a
sense
this account is science fiction."
One grossly out of context quote without a citation!
Boy, I'm convinced!
If you followed the thread you know the ref was given.. but feel free to
tell us why it was out of context..
I, for one, would like to see the complete paragraph, or several
sentences before and after this quote. These mined quotes *always are
ancient, lies, out of context, or quotes of non-biologists.
--- Kermit
sure.. if I put more.. more you ask.. and if the whole book was posted you
would say, I am out of context.. regardless...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
14 Sep 2003 12:37:07 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<I9N8b.150190$Os1.1256309@news.easynews.com>...
"Kermit" <freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1575bfdc.0309131420.70654b37@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<5fI8b.4240403$mA4.592668@news.easynews.com>...
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309130827.671b6ef1@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
-=snip=-
If you followed the thread you know the ref was given.. but feel free to
tell us why it was out of context..
I, for one, would like to see the complete paragraph, or several
sentences before and after this quote. These mined quotes *always are
ancient, lies, out of context, or quotes of non-biologists.
--- Kermit
sure.. if I put more.. more you ask.. and if the whole book was posted you
would say, I am out of context.. regardless...
Yeah, if he isn't satisfied with one misleading, out-of-context
sentence, it is "logical" to assume he won't be satisfied with
a book-length quote. That's some good thinkin' there.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Missy Morino" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
13 Sep 2003 09:28:26 PM |
|
|
"Kermit" <freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
I, for one, would like to see the complete paragraph, or several
sentences before and after this quote. These mined quotes *always are
ancient, lies, out of context, or quotes of non-biologists.
=========================
The Watchtower literature Jabriol and other JWs are coerced to read (4
magazines a month) are filled with these "out of context" quotes. And these
magazines are about all Jabbers has to go by. The Watchtower approves of
nothing that isn't anti-evolution for it's members to read.
Jabs seems to think if he can somehow prove evolution is false, that some
god suddenly decided to "create' a whole universe,.... that everyone will go
screaming, scratching and clawing for the nearest Kingdom Hall begging for a
Bible study.
--
Missy.......
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =-
===========================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
20 Sep 2003 01:49:25 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
[Yet Another Dumbass Jabriol Argument from Incredulity(TM) snipped]
Once again, for the congenitally inept, here is the FAQ on
transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Is this supposed to be one of these mythical "Colossal Holes" in the
Theory of Evolution, which despite repeated requests for several
weeks, you have consistently failed to find the wherewithal to post an
actual list?
Keep trying. I think what you will discover, if you really apply
yoruself to it, is that the only colossal hole is in your ability to
actually put together a non-plagiarised argument against evolution
that makes sense and is supported by the evidence.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
20 Sep 2003 05:55:24 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309201049.4c728455@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
[Yet Another Dumbass Jabriol Argument from Incredulity(TM) snipped]
Once again, for the congenitally inept, here is the FAQ on
transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
[Yet another non-peered reviewed hyped up T.O Faq ignored]
don't you have well placed acepted material to sure?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
22 Sep 2003 09:17:07 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<wV4bb.4702724$mA4.660339@news.easynews.com>...
Once again, for the congenitally inept, here is the FAQ on
transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
[Yet another non-peered reviewed hyped up T.O Faq ignored]
don't you have well placed acepted material to sure?
Your hypocrisy has been noted world-wide - that while you have never,
ever, posted a single article that has been supported by references to
scientifically peer-reviewed articles published in refereed science
journals, you have the hypocrisy to dismiss the t.o. archives, which
are written by practicing scientists and given informal peer-review by
other scientists who read and post to talk.origins. The names of
these scientists are all over the talk-origins news group and the
archives, for anyone with the wherewithal to actually go look.
Clearly you don't understand the concept of peer-review in any way,
shape, or form, do you? Let's be clear about what it is, because
there are two kinds of peer review which you are either confusing out
of your well-known colossal stupidity, or are confusing because you
are colossally stupid.
One is the rigorous peer-review required of any paper that is to be
published in one of the standard refereed science journals, perhaps
the generally best known of which are "Science" and "Nature". Note
that these publications are not to be confused with lay science
publications such as "Scientific American", "Discover", or "New
Scientist".
Then there is an informal peer-review process which is the kind
employed in the talk.origins archives, where a *scientist* writes a
paper on a given topic, and other *scientists* read the paper and
offer comments and suggestions regarding accuracy, clarity, etc. Once
there is general agreement that the article is acceptable, it gets
into the archives. In other words, it *IS* peer-reviewed. it *ISN'T*
published like a regular science paper.
Are you with it so far? I doubt it, but let's press on.
Read this and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html
This is the welcome to t.o. FAQ, and contains this:
"Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs
appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer
review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been
commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins
newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well
regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as
the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a
scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when
reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have
not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or
misstatements of fact. Any errors you identify should be reported to
the authors or to the editor."
Now let's look at one of the articles. Since you are an expert at
plagiarism, this one ought to interest you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This is written by Edward E. Max, who is a doctor of medicine and a
PhD.
Is that scientific enough for you? Just what are your science
qualifications, anyway, that give *you* the right to demand
peer-reviewed science from others?
Now read the article. Note that in the very first section after the
introduction (1.1) there is this reference: Goodman et al., J Molec
Evolution 30:260,1990. This is a reference to a refereed science
publication **which does require that submitted papers go through
rigorous peer-review before being accepted**.
So the article is not formally peer-reviewed, but it references
articles that are. Now do you have any more complaints? Do you even
understand this much? Or are you going to flap your arms helplessly,
throw out a shitload of straw men and wave around in the desperate
hope that you total humilation will be overlooked?
The article demonstrates that humans and chimpanzees not only share a
massively overwhelming amount of their protein coding DNA, but also
share errors in that DNA. This could only have come about through a
process of evolution - from a common ancestor giving rise to both the
only remaining human species and the few remaining chimpanzee species.
Now I have answered your questions, where is the *LIST* of these
colossal holes you have invented but cannot even make a **LIST** of?
You *do* understand what a list is, don't you? If not, let me know,
and I will dumb down my postings to your level so you can get clued
in.
And please, do thrill us all with your stammering excuses as to why
the t.o. transitional species FAQ, written by Kathleen Hunt, which
contains over **70** references to peer-reviewed publications by
practicing professional scientists in refereed magazines such as
"Nature" and other journals is not good enough for you. Those
jounrals contain the detailed reports of the very transitionals
Kathleen Hunt sumamrises in the article.
The world is waiting, utter humiliation stands tip-toe in the wings,
clue Jabriol to enter, stage left field....
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
23 Sep 2003 06:03:37 AM |
|
|
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0309221817.29bcd915@posting.google.com>...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<wV4bb.4702724$mA4.660339@news.easynews.com>...
Once again, for the congenitally inept, here is the FAQ on
transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
[Yet another non-peered reviewed hyped up T.O Faq ignored]
don't you have well placed acepted material to sure?
Your hypocrisy has been noted world-wide - that while you have never,
ever, posted a single article that has been supported by references to
scientifically peer-reviewed articles published in refereed science
journals, you have the hypocrisy to dismiss the t.o. archives, which
are written by practicing scientists and given informal peer-review by
other scientists who read and post to talk.origins. The names of
these scientists are all over the talk-origins news group and the
archives, for anyone with the wherewithal to actually go look.
evasion of question noted..
snip usual evading useless non related material.
Clearly you don't understand the concept of peer-review in any way,
shape, or form, do you? Let's be clear about what it is, because
there are two kinds of peer review which you are either confusing out
of your well-known colossal stupidity, or are confusing because you
are colossally stupid.
One is the rigorous peer-review required of any paper that is to be
published in one of the standard refereed science journals, perhaps
the generally best known of which are "Science" and "Nature". Note
that these publications are not to be confused with lay science
publications such as "Scientific American", "Discover", or "New
Scientist".
Then there is an informal peer-review process which is the kind
employed in the talk.origins archives, where a *scientist* writes a
paper on a given topic, and other *scientists* read the paper and
offer comments and suggestions regarding accuracy, clarity, etc. Once
there is general agreement that the article is acceptable, it gets
into the archives. In other words, it *IS* peer-reviewed. it *ISN'T*
published like a regular science paper.
Are you with it so far? I doubt it, but let's press on.
Read this and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html
This is the welcome to t.o. FAQ, and contains this:
"Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs
appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer
review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been
commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins
newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well
regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as
the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a
scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when
reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have
not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or
misstatements of fact. Any errors you identify should be reported to
the authors or to the editor."
Now let's look at one of the articles. Since you are an expert at
plagiarism, this one ought to interest you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This is written by Edward E. Max, who is a doctor of medicine and a
PhD.
Is that scientific enough for you? Just what are your science
qualifications, anyway, that give *you* the right to demand
peer-reviewed science from others?
Now read the article. Note that in the very first section after the
introduction (1.1) there is this reference: Goodman et al., J Molec
Evolution 30:260,1990. This is a reference to a refereed science
publication **which does require that submitted papers go through
rigorous peer-review before being accepted**.
So the article is not formally peer-reviewed, but it references
articles that are. Now do you have any more complaints? Do you even
understand this much? Or are you going to flap your arms helplessly,
throw out a shitload of straw men and wave around in the desperate
hope that you total humilation will be overlooked?
The article demonstrates that humans and chimpanzees not only share a
massively overwhelming amount of their protein coding DNA, but also
share errors in that DNA. This could only have come about through a
process of evolution - from a common ancestor giving rise to both the
only remaining human species and the few remaining chimpanzee species.
Now I have answered your questions, where is the *LIST* of these
colossal holes you have invented but cannot even make a **LIST** of?
You *do* understand what a list is, don't you? If not, let me know,
and I will dumb down my postings to your level so you can get clued
in.
And please, do thrill us all with your stammering excuses as to why
the t.o. transitional species FAQ, written by Kathleen Hunt, which
contains over **70** references to peer-reviewed publications by
practicing professional scientists in refereed magazines such as
"Nature" and other journals is not good enough for you. Those
jounrals contain the detailed reports of the very transitionals
Kathleen Hunt sumamrises in the article.
The world is waiting, utter humiliation stands tip-toe in the wings,
clue Jabriol to enter, stage left field....
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
24 Sep 2003 04:31:57 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message
Your hypocrisy has been noted world-wide - that while you have never,
ever, posted a single article that has been supported by references to
scientifically peer-reviewed articles published in refereed science
journals, you have the hypocrisy to dismiss the t.o. archives, which
are written by practicing scientists and given informal peer-review by
other scientists who read and post to talk.origins. The names of
these scientists are all over the talk-origins news group and the
archives, for anyone with the wherewithal to actually go look.
evasion of question noted..
Your continued evasions of repeated questions have been noted. I
repeat my instructions - also evaded by you - that I will answer your
questions when you ANSWER THE ONE I ASKED FIRST which was to provide
**A LIST** of the supposed "colossal holes" in the Theory of
Evolution. I am not even asking for any details or definitions any
more, just a simple list. You do know what **A LIST** is, don't you?
Here is an example for the cognitively challenged:
1. THIS
2. IS
3. A
4. NUMBERED
5. LIST
6. OF
7. THE
8. WORDS
9. IN
10. THESE
11. TWO
12. SENTENCES.
13. GET
14. IT
15. NOW?
The fact that you completely evaded addressing the entire issue of
peer-review has also been noted world-wide. Jabriol has now
completely evolved into a chicken, thereby proving evolution is a
fact.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
12 Sep 2003 09:34:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
You'll have to specify which theory you're talking about first.
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth's
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells.
No, those are called bones, teeth and shells. Bone that have had the
bone replaced with other mineral are fossils.
A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail.
Nope.
Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape.
ALL fossils have.
Fossils give tangible evidence of the
varieties of life that existed long before man's arrival. But they have not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began
Which has nothing to do with how life that already existed changed,
which is ALL evolution is.
Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
If you define "important places" as those in which there are no
fossils.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
13 Sep 2003 07:19:08 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:5b05mvkdv4f4ltvjv48rb9vlo1uprssq5i@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the
evolutionary
theory
You'll have to specify which theory you're talking about first.
How many theories are there?
is it like christian denominations?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hey DuRunRun" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
13 Sep 2003 08:46:35 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:0XD8b.4227030$mA4.588354@news.easynews.com...
How many theories are there?
# 1. The mythical magical creation where some invisible being got a wild
hair and decided to make some pets to worship him/her/it..
# 2. The planet was seeded from outer space sometime in the distant past.
# 3. All life evolved in the seas billions of years ago.
is it like christian denominations?
# Yep,... everyone has their own interpretation of the Bible.
--
Eddie & Edie....
Please observe that everything that is alive will die. That includes
all plants, animals, bacteria, and especially mankind. Our wonderful God
has given us Cancer, M.S., A.L.S., Birth Defects, Blindness, Polio,
Alzheimer's, Heart Disease, and all the other wonderful gifts. Since God
created all things, he also created all the severe disease germs he
blessed mankind with. (Gator)
==========================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
14 Sep 2003 07:55:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:19:08 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:5b05mvkdv4f4ltvjv48rb9vlo1uprssq5i@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
You'll have to specify which theory you're talking about first.
How many theories are there?
At least a dozen.
is it like christian denominations?
No, Christian denominations each claim to be the only totally correct
one. Different theories of evolution explain different observations.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter" |
|
| Title: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series (Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils) |
14 Sep 2003 11:41:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
Let's talk about the Moral Deficiency that is the hallmark of the JW's
Newsweek
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
SECTION: SOCIETY; Ripple Effects; Pg. 81
LENGTH: 270 words
HEADLINE: Witness To Shame
BYLINE: By Julie Scelfo
HIGHLIGHT:
Another religion faces a scandal of its own
BODY:
As Roman Catholic bishops issued a mea culpa last week, Jehovah's
Witnesses, a cloistered group of 980,000, moved closer to facing a
sex-abuse scandal of their own. In January a woman from Sacramento,
Calif., filed a lawsuit charging that church leaders knowingly failed
to notify civil authorities that she was raped by a member of her
congregation. A former church leader in Maryland was indicted in
February for sexually assaulting three women who say they were told by
elders not to report the abuse, and were excommunicated when they did.
After additional stories aired recently on TV, a victims' support
group run by William H. Bowen was deluged with e-mails and phone
calls. "Catholics only protect the priests. Jehovah's Witnesses do it
for any member of the church," says Bowen, a former elder from
Kentucky. Sara Poisson says that prior to her husband's conviction for
sexually abusing her daughters, church elders told her to "pray more
and be a better wife." Church spokesman J. R. Brown says the group
instructs local leaders to notify police when required by law. They
also conduct their own investigation: "That consists of going directly
to the accused." If someone confesses, says Brown, he will be
prohibited from going door-to-door--unless accompanied by another
Witness. Brown points out that people who accuse the church are often
lapsed Witnesses, and "open prey" for exploiters. But victims like
Poisson's daughter, Heather Berry, 20, say it's the church that does
the exploiting. "They're letting the kids down. I don't think there's
anything Christian about allowing abuse to continue."
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -455 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -290 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Missy Morino" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series |
14 Sep 2003 01:49:05 PM |
|
|
"Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter"
<eacmole@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f649973.1518109@news.cox.net...
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
BODY:
As Roman Catholic bishops issued a mea culpa last week, Jehovah's
Witnesses, a cloistered group of 980,000, moved closer to facing a
sex-abuse scandal of their own. In January a woman from Sacramento,
Calif., filed a lawsuit charging that church leaders knowingly failed
to notify civil authorities that she was raped by a member of her
congregation. - snip!
=========================
BRAVO! It's about time this cult was exposed for the false-religion it
really is. Notice that if a sick JW pervert is reported he's not
disfellowshipped - he's simply sent with another JW to your door! How can
anyone know if the 2nd JW is qualified to control the pervert? What if BOTH
are pedophiles or rapists? Keep those doors locked when you see these
people coming. Keep them away from your children. They refuse to police
themselves.
Note: It's ok among the Jehovah's Witnesses to RAPE a child but they
disfellowship members who live together by mutual consent, or if they have a
baby out of wedlock.
--
Bonnie Mae......
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a
will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should
survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...;
such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
~ Albert Einstein ~
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series |
14 Sep 2003 04:04:01 PM |
|
|
"Missy Morino" <all-evil@theWickedWTs.net> wrote in message
news:TA29b.349$U11.99@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
"Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter"
<eacmole@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f649973.1518109@news.cox.net...
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
BODY:
As Roman Catholic bishops issued a mea culpa last week, Jehovah's
Witnesses, a cloistered group of 980,000, moved closer to facing a
sex-abuse scandal of their own. In January a woman from Sacramento,
Calif., filed a lawsuit charging that church leaders knowingly failed
to notify civil authorities that she was raped by a member of her
congregation. - snip!
=========================
BRAVO! It's about time this cult was exposed for the false-religion it
really is.
So Carol who an ATHEIST, belive that there must be a true religion someplace
eh?
tell us what is the true religion of an atheist...
back into the killbox you go.... and come back when you have something
useful to say.. mean time go home and service your husband like a good
atheist wife should...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr & Mrs Mario Morino" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series - Jabriol's impotency - Viagra useless! |
15 Sep 2003 12:42:03 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:4J49b.4317233$cI2.610306@news.easynews.com...
So Carol who an ATHEIST, belive that there must be a true religion
someplace
eh?
$$ Eh,... you forgot AGAIN that "Carol" is agnostic? How come you can't
remember? Too high a dose of meds again?
tell us what is the true religion of an atheist...
$$ Why? Would you leave the Watchtower Corp to join it?
back into the killbox you go.... and come back when you have something
useful to say.. mean time go home and service your husband like a good
atheist wife should...
$$ WOW!!! You're still OBSESSED with women "servicing their husbands" since
you became impotent with your disease. LOL!!!! What's the matter Jabriol,
Viagra wont work with all the other meds you're on? Don't you wish your
wife could still "service" you? Can you still remember what "servicing"
was like? Since you believe in BEATING women into submission - was that
they technique you'd use? I mean when she could still "service" you?
Yes, my husband, still healthy as a horse has no problem...... LOL!!!!
:-) That really EATS your lunch for some reason. Have you looked into
P-Implants?
Now make sure you tell everyone, all those Jehovah's Witnesses disgusted
with you, that THIS was just another forged post by one of your hundreds of
enemies here on Usenet.
--
Mario & Karol Morino.....
(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: "MarcRW" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series |
14 Sep 2003 04:44:27 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:4J49b.4317233$cI2.610306@news.easynews.com...
She had a lot more to say than you do, and ger grammar is better as well.
Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0xF8BCE4EB
iQA/AwUBP2ThOiu7sZD4vOTrEQIV5wCdFAtWNEe6xELHpk/ohmzjNk/z6oUAoMZV
9w7bMoidbPgsh+Ip14zj2oid
=x+y4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series |
14 Sep 2003 09:45:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:04:01 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
"Missy Morino" <all-evil@theWickedWTs.net> wrote in message
news:TA29b.349$U11.99@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
"Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter"
<eacmole@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f649973.1518109@news.cox.net...
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
BODY:
As Roman Catholic bishops issued a mea culpa last week, Jehovah's
Witnesses, a cloistered group of 980,000, moved closer to facing a
sex-abuse scandal of their own. In January a woman from Sacramento,
Calif., filed a lawsuit charging that church leaders knowingly failed
to notify civil authorities that she was raped by a member of her
congregation. - snip!
=========================
BRAVO! It's about time this cult was exposed for the false-religion it
really is.
So Carol who an ATHEIST, belive that there must be a true religion someplace
eh?
So Jabriol the JW apologist thinks it's okay for JW's to molest little
girl eh?
back into the killbox you go.... and come back when you have something
useful to say.. mean time go home and service your husband like a good
atheist wife should...
Typical JW, trying to defend the indefensible. Only a cult as sick and
perverted as the JW's can produce someone as sick and perverted as
you.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -455 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -291 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr & Mrs Mario Morino" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series |
15 Sep 2003 12:50:59 AM |
|
|
"Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter"
<eacmole@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
So Jabriol the JW apologist thinks it's okay for JW's to molest little
girl eh?
** YES! They simply try to get the child to "keep quiet." This is all
being exposed now. People are coming forward and telling about the abuse
now. The pervert is quietly pulled aside and give a good "talking to." If
he claims he's sorry he gets away with it Scott Free! That the child may be
emotionally destroyed or damaged for life is the price the Watchtower is
willing to pay to keep it's reputation squeaky clean. After all they claim
that only THEY, the Jehovah's Witnesses are god's people. How the parents
go along with this is unbelievable - but they do! They put the WTS and the
JWs BEFORE their own flesh and blood.
back into the killbox you go.... and come back when you have something
useful to say.. mean time go home and service your husband like a good
atheist wife should... (Jabriol)
Typical JW, trying to defend the indefensible. Only a cult as sick and
perverted as the JW's can produce someone as sick and perverted as
you.
** Jabriol will always put the Watchtower before the welfare of the
innocent victims of the cult's perverts. Sweeping the perverts "under the
WT carpet" kept them out of sight, making the WT Corp look as they claim,
like.."Jehovah's happiest people in earth." The raped, sodomized and
molested children will tell a different tale.
--
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: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series (Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils) |
14 Sep 2003 04:17:12 PM |
|
|
(Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter) wrote in message news:<3f649973.1518109@news.cox.net>...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
Let's talk about the Moral Deficiency that is the hallmark of the JW's
Newsweek
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
SECTION: SOCIETY; Ripple Effects; Pg. 81
LENGTH: 270 words
snip....................
Many former and disgruntled JW's family
members will INDICATE that JW's
and/or the WTBTS are wrong or at fault no matter the topic, the
proof, or the evidence. As with Carol and other anti-jw's already
"know" the
reality, and do nothing but work backwards from said private reality
with respect to a given WTBTS/JW
related matter, presenting anything and everything even remotely
closely apparently confirming their a priori conviction as "proof"
that they were "right all along". A good example is ant-jw's fetish
for reposting "excerpts" of articles which simply declare that one
or more wrong/evil-doers "is"/"are" Jehovah's Witnesses, with ZERO
proof/evidence that said alleged wrong/evil-doers actually make
any attempt at all to live the alleged godly principles allegedly
embodied in the teaching(s) of the WTBTS. One may as well post
an excerpt of an article that says, "four teenages girls - who are
*WHITE* - were caught stealing Eminem CD's from Tower Records", in
hopes of convincing the audience that said excerpt "proves" something
about "whiteness". What does the "Jehovah's Witness" label mean,
if there's no proof/evidence that those it's applied to in one of
these "excerpts" is anything more than a JW in name/label only?
Do we look at someone that tries to run 26 miles right off the bat,
with no training, and keels over, and say, "See? Now we KNOW that
runners are screwed up!" No, we don't. Or shouldn't. But that's
the kind of currency that the Carol's and PB's
of the newsgroup deal in.
And that is the nature of all people who try to change the subject
from a science disscusion into a "look at the naughty JW"
thread, very childish indeed.
they really nothing to participate with because they know nothing at
all ecept hate...
Thread like these die quick, and I am sure nobody else will care.. nor
bother
right Carol?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr & Mrs Mario Morino" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series - JW sex and rape of kids |
15 Sep 2003 01:05:25 AM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309141317.4718da3@posting.google.com...
Many former and disgruntled JW's family
members will INDICATE that JW's
and/or the WTBTS are wrong or at fault no matter the topic,
## Ahemmmm..... many are still active JWs. There ARE a few honest JWs out
there not looking to cover up for the perverts in your cult Jabbers.
the
proof, or the evidence. As with Carol and other anti-jw's already
"know" the
reality, and do nothing but work backwards from said private reality
with respect to a given WTBTS/JW
related matter,
## It's well known coast to coast that the Watchtower's pedophiles and child
molesters were quietly hidden. They're still allowed to go door to door
where they may have contact with an endless supply of victims. The parents
in the congs are not WARNED to keep their children away from these JW
perverts. However, if 2 adult JWs decide to live together and have a normal
sex life they are disfellowshipped!!! Now why is that? Mutual sex gets
them thrown out but rape and forced sex with a child gets hidden away.
There's something WRONG with that. Don't you agree?
Thread like these die quick, and I am sure nobody else will care.. nor
bother
right Carol?
## Do people CARE about children being sexually attacked in your cult?
You all believe this must be hidden to keep the Watchtower's reputation
untarnished - right Jabriol? Do you agree that that's the proper thing to
do? DF adult JWs who live together but hide your pedophiles? Do you agree
with the WT that the raped/sodomized children should pray more and and keep
their "secret" to themselves?
--
The Krobez family......
(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: "[µ] Mining Pioneer" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series - JW sex and rape of kids |
15 Sep 2003 04:58:07 AM |
|
|
Yes there is A True Religion and only one at that.
Please use from now on that beautiful prayer, below the star line, I made
to Our Almighty Celtic God.
All blessings and answers to your queries will come your way then if you say
it with confidence.
Honour to Our Celtic God
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer of Australian Mining
Discoverer of Telfer; Kintyre & Nifty Mines in The Great Sandy Desert.
Discoverer of the South Atlantic Submarine Gold Placers
_ 40 Millions Tons estimate _
Founder of The TRUE GEOLOGY
* The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://membres.lycos.fr/jpturcaud/
* The True Geology ( previously Refutation of the Horrid Geological Myths )
http://membres.lycos.fr/xxx/ ( Not available due to plagiarism hazards )
Breaking News
"THE GOLDEN RULE"
"Gold and Intrigue in the Desert"
"The true story of the discovery of the Telfer gold mine"
Author : Bob Sheppard, President of the Australian Prospectors' Union
Author's contact & web page : www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/
Order from : Hesperian Press, PO Box 317 Victoria Park, 6979 W.Australia.
AUS 40.00 + post
Official launching done in Perth this 15th December 2002
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
**********************************************
LET'S PRAY NOW !
Our Celtic God and Loving Father
Who art the very nature of all things in Heaven.and Earth
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy kingdom come! -
Thy will be done by us the Celts as it is on Earth and Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread of beauty, intelligence and understanding.
Do not forgive us our trespasses but let's pay for our erring ways
Punish dearly those who trespass against us according to Eternal Celtic
Justice
Lead us into knowledge of Thy Cosmic Laws
But deliver us from the Evil of the Semite Sects godly shits of Adonaļ,
Yahweh, Allah Ackbar & Judah Bar Judah ( JC)
For Thine is the Kingdom!, and the Power!, and the Glory
For thy sons and daughters of the Chosen Celtic Race
For Eternity !
HAIL TO THE CELTS
Nature Laws are clear, straight forward and do not suffer exception.
Those who infringe them, pay for it ! ... and this is good !
.... and some of us Celts , can see the consequences of the Ignorance or
Contempt for Cosmic Laws taking their toll !!!
.... and this is very refreshing
since proving indeed there NO exception to Divine Laws !
NO Immunity !
NO Impunity !
NO Forgiveness !
NO Forgetting !
These are the Divine Laws of our ALMIGHTY CELTIC GOD , THE UNIQUE, THE
UNNAMED, THE BLESSED ONE and
HOLY CREATOR of all things !
HONOUR TO OUR CELTIC GOD !
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series -- JW SKILLS |
14 Sep 2003 04:27:27 PM |
|
|
JaBrIoL wrote:
eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter) wrote in message news:<3f649973.1518109@news.cox.net>...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
Let's talk about the Moral Deficiency that is the hallmark of the JW's
Newsweek
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
SECTION: SOCIETY; Ripple Effects; Pg. 81
LENGTH: 270 words
snip....................
Many former and disgruntled JW's family
members will INDICATE that JW's
and/or the WTBTS are wrong or at fault no matter the topic, the
proof, or the evidence. As with Carol and other anti-jw's already
"know" the
reality, and do nothing but work backwards from said private reality
with respect to a given WTBTS/JW
related matter, presenting anything and everything even remotely
closely apparently confirming their a priori conviction as "proof"
that they were "right all along".
===>WOW!
This is a skill they were taught by JWs in "proving" the biblical
accuracy of their weird doctrines.
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series (Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils) |
14 Sep 2003 09:48:34 PM |
|
|
On 14 Sep 2003 14:17:12 -0700, (JaBrIoL) wrote:
eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter) wrote in message news:<3f649973.1518109@news.cox.net>...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
Let's talk about the Moral Deficiency that is the hallmark of the JW's
Newsweek
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
SECTION: SOCIETY; Ripple Effects; Pg. 81
LENGTH: 270 words
snip....................
Many former and disgruntled JW's family
members will INDICATE that JW's
and/or the WTBTS are wrong or at fault no matter the topic, the
proof, or the evidence. As with Carol and other anti-jw's already
"know" the
reality, and do nothing but work backwards from said private reality
with respect to a given WTBTS/JW
related matter, presenting anything and everything even remotely
closely apparently confirming their a priori conviction as "proof"
that they were "right all along". A good example is ant-jw's fetish
for reposting "excerpts" of articles which simply declare that one
or more wrong/evil-doers "is"/"are" Jehovah's Witnesses, with ZERO
proof/evidence that said alleged wrong/evil-doers actually make
any attempt at all to live the alleged godly principles allegedly
embodied in the teaching(s) of the WTBTS.
Typical apolgist, putting your cult above the wellbeing of innocent
little girls.
Newsweek
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
SECTION: SOCIETY; Ripple Effects; Pg. 81
LENGTH: 270 words
HEADLINE: Witness To Shame
BYLINE: By Julie Scelfo
HIGHLIGHT:
Another religion faces a scandal of its own
BODY:
As Roman Catholic bishops issued a mea culpa last week, Jehovah's
Witnesses, a cloistered group of 980,000, moved closer to facing a
sex-abuse scandal of their own. In January a woman from Sacramento,
Calif., filed a lawsuit charging that church leaders knowingly failed
to notify civil authorities that she was raped by a member of her
congregation. A former church leader in Maryland was indicted in
February for sexually assaulting three women who say they were told by
elders not to report the abuse, and were excommunicated when they did.
After additional stories aired recently on TV, a victims' support
group run by William H. Bowen was deluged with e-mails and phone
calls. "Catholics only protect the priests. Jehovah's Witnesses do it
for any member of the church," says Bowen, a former elder from
Kentucky. Sara Poisson says that prior to her husband's conviction for
sexually abusing her daughters, church elders told her to "pray more
and be a better wife." Church spokesman J. R. Brown says the group
instructs local leaders to notify police when required by law. They
also conduct their own investigation: "That consists of going directly
to the accused." If someone confesses, says Brown, he will be
prohibited from going door-to-door--unless accompanied by another
Witness. Brown points out that people who accuse the church are often
lapsed Witnesses, and "open prey" for exploiters. But victims like
Poisson's daughter, Heather Berry, 20, say it's the church that does
the exploiting. "They're letting the kids down. I don't think there's
anything Christian about allowing abuse to continue."
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -455 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -291 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: The JW Molester Hall of Fame Series (Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils) |
14 Sep 2003 03:56:34 PM |
|
|
Yeah,,,,yeah all JW's are child molesters... sure, whatever
you want to believe in..
"Yang, Fairer Than Fox and More Balanced than John Pointdexter"
<eacmole@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f649973.1518109@news.cox.net...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the
evolutionary
theory
Let's talk about the Moral Deficiency that is the hallmark of the JW's
Newsweek
June 24, 2002, U.S. Edition
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
