| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZilentNoise" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2007 08:51:26 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was
to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write
its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great
divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of
evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of
the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
.
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:33:57 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:HwBci.406$Zh6.270@trnddc04...
And now you refuse to answer a 4th time.
You lack reading comprehension since it's been answered several times
over the years since you laughed at how gullible and easily fooled your
elders were at the
Camden NJ Kingdom Hall. When you made fun of them, laughed at them and were
so proud of
yourself for tricking and deceiving them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:55:04 PM |
|
|
Kathy wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:HwBci.406$Zh6.270@trnddc04...
And now you refuse to answer a 4th time.
You lack reading comprehension since it's been answered several times
over the years since you laughed at how gullible and easily fooled your
elders were at the
Camden NJ Kingdom Hall. When you made fun of them, laughed at them and
were so proud of
yourself for tricking and deceiving them.
fail to answer a 5th time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 04:36:01 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and
forgetting the misses).
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 09:27:22 AM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> skrev i melding news:5rZbi.6923$xg4.1652@trnddc08...
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
More like Observational Overriding. Letting the huge, theory-undermining misses
surpass their emptyheaded little religious minds :P
S
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 06:56:03 AM |
|
|
On Jun 13, 4:36 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and
forgetting the misses).
This is meaningless without some scientific support. Care to expand
on your claim? What was observed? What was counted as hits? What
was counted as misses?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 09:39:59 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:36 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and
forgetting the misses).
This is meaningless without some scientific support. Care to expand
on your claim? What was observed? What was counted as hits? What
was counted as misses?
Budikka
of course... study science... and then you will know what I am talking
about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 02:00:05 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 9:39 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:36 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and
forgetting the misses).
This is meaningless without some scientific support. Care to expand
on your claim? What was observed? What was counted as hits? What
was counted as misses?
Budikka
of course... study science...
You've presented no science to study. All you've offered is
meaningless claims. When you've presented some science, I'll study it
and point out where you're wrong. That's how discussion groups work.
Or is this an open admission from you in these worldwide public fora
that you cannot support your claims; that, in fact, you have no
scientific backing and are just whining about the Theory of Evolution,
which has 150 years of solid scientific support published worldwide in
peer-reviewed journals by people of all faiths?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 02:07:18 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:39 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:36 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and
forgetting the misses).
This is meaningless without some scientific support. Care to expand
on your claim? What was observed? What was counted as hits? What
was counted as misses?
Budikka
of course... study science...
You've presented no science to study. All you've offered is
meaningless claims.
Such as?
When you've presented some science, I'll study it
and point out where you're wrong.
Do you hear how stupid you sound. You are saying in advance whatever I
put out, you will say is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
18 Jun 2007 05:28:15 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 2:07 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:39 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:36 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and
forgetting the misses).
This is meaningless without some scientific support. Care to expand
on your claim? What was observed? What was counted as hits? What
was counted as misses?
Budikka
of course... study science...
You've presented no science to study. All you've offered is
meaningless claims.
Such as?
"why doesn't [the Theory of Evolution] pass the scientific method"
This is a LIE.
"Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified"
The Theory fo Evolution can be falsified, that's *why* it's considered
a scientific theory.
"But post a 50 yr old quote of a scientist who doesn't agree with TOE
and you lamblasted for it."
LIE. Thompson was an entomoligist, hardly the best "expert" on
eovltuion, but even so, he accepted the Theory of Evolution even
though he said it had no overwhelming evidence. But this was half a
century ago. Things have changed since he wrote that. That's why
your quote is entirely irrelevant.
And the bare fact is that science is not conducted by quotes. It;s
conducted by doign the science. Now once again, where is your science
showing positive evidence of creation?
When you've presented some science, I'll study it
and point out where you're wrong.
Do you hear how stupid you sound. You are saying in advance whatever I
put out, you will say is wrong.
No. What I said, is post your science (which you've failed to do
despite repeated requests), and I'll show you where **YOU** are wrong.
Can't you tell the difference?
Now once again, do you have positive science for your claims or are
you just a vacuous whiner?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
18 Jun 2007 10:24:25 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1182205695.747849.134410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Now once again, do you have positive science for your claims or are
you just a vacuous whiner?
Just to let you know - Jabriol/Antonio is impersonating others again. Don't
let him get to you. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
19 Jun 2007 02:17:10 PM |
|
|
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46774c71$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1182205695.747849.134410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Now once again, do you have positive science for your claims or are
you just a vacuous whiner?
Just to let you know - Jabriol/Antonio is impersonating others again.
Don't let him get to you. :-)
your point?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
19 Jun 2007 02:53:46 PM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 10:24 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1182205695.747849.134410@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Now once again, do you have positive science for your claims or are
you just a vacuous whiner?
Just to let you know - Jabriol/Antonio is impersonating others again. Don't
let him get to you. :-)
I never doubted it for a minute. He's perfectly distinguishable from
the nature of the messages he posts. He has nothing to offer but
vacuous whining about the Theory of Evolution, his "references" are
quite simply unreferenced out-of-date quotes, and once you start
challenging him to produce some positive science to supprot his claim,
he runs away, as he has done her, magically "reappearing" as Jabriol.
At this point, all he can do is snip and run. Watch him.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E4rFl=E4ken?=" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
18 Jun 2007 06:49:45 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:07 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:39 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:36 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and
forgetting the misses).
This is meaningless without some scientific support. Care to expand
on your claim? What was observed? What was counted as hits? What
was counted as misses?
Budikka
of course... study science...
You've presented no science to study. All you've offered is
meaningless claims.
Such as?
"why doesn't [the Theory of Evolution] pass the scientific method"
This is a LIE.
Carol, meet Budikaka, sole owner of scientific truth on her says so alone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
19 Jun 2007 02:16:18 PM |
|
|
"DärFläken" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:tSEdi.4475$%t6.898@trnddc02...
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:07 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:39 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:36 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only*
science-
based explanation for this fact.
Here your fallacy: Observational selection (counting the hits and
forgetting the misses).
This is meaningless without some scientific support. Care to expand
on your claim? What was observed? What was counted as hits? What
was counted as misses?
Budikka
of course... study science...
You've presented no science to study. All you've offered is
meaningless claims.
Such as?
"why doesn't [the Theory of Evolution] pass the scientific method"
This is a LIE.
Carol, meet Budikaka, sole owner of scientific truth on her says so alone.
huh?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 05:58:01 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jun, 22:11, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
L.
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has
been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is
a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin's book The
Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory
have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top
evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
If you have positive scientific evidence for an alternative, I'd be
delighted to debate it with you. Do you have it, or are you just
another whining creationist Jabriol clone?
Budikka
It's another whining Jabriol sock puppet.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 04:42:47 PM |
|
|
On Jun 13, 5:58 pm, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 13 Jun, 22:11, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
L.
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has
been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is
a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin's book The
Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory
have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top
evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.
If you have positive scientific evidence for an alternative, I'd be
delighted to debate it with you. Do you have it, or are you just
another whining creationist Jabriol clone?
Budikka
It's another whining Jabriol sock puppet.
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Andy,
Say one damn thing nice just to show you are not a bully. K.W.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
16 Jun 2007 04:45:25 PM |
|
|
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms. They point to
similarities in skeletal structure of different animals as proof that
such animals are related, if not by direct descent, at least by descent
from a common ancestor. They point out that in the early stages of
development from the egg cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble
those of “lower” ones. They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical
structure of hemoglobin and on that basis classify different species as
being close or more distant relatives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 03:55:00 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:VRYci.540$bn6.483@trnddc03...
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Just as you Jehovah's Witness CREATIONISTS do yet you produce not one shred
of evidence for a supernatural creation. You produce no evidence of demons
or gods for that matter.......
<illegal plagiarized material snipped >
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 09:32:21 PM |
|
|
The Apostate wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Just as you Jehovah's Witness CREATIONISTS do yet you produce not one
shred of evidence for a supernatural creation. You produce no evidence
of demons or gods for that matter.......
You're asking too much of them.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 04:53:52 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
The Apostate wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Just as you Jehovah's Witness CREATIONISTS do yet you produce not one
shred of evidence for a supernatural creation. You produce no
evidence of demons or gods for that matter.......
You're asking too much of them.
because there is no such thing as a supernatural creation, You see Carol
intent here is to Blast JW's.
She hanged out with them for 2o yr and did not learn this. She has no
clue as to TOE, nor does she cares. everyone of her post is and ad hom
attack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 04:51:40 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" habitual liar <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:QCsdi.4377$%t6.520@trnddc02...
because there is no such thing as a supernatural creation, You see Carol
intent here is to Blast JW's.
And you see Antonio aka ZilentNoise's intent is to blast non-CREATIONISTS.
You're a habitual liar Antonio. I called my friend in Nashville and he said
you're lying. The WTS still teaches Jehovah *CREATED* everything. That
nothing came into existence without Jehovah. You're missing too many
meetings at the Kingdom Hell. Get off your lazy @$$ and make some meetings.
BS snipped............
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 08:48:11 AM |
|
|
ZilentNoise wrote:
because there is no such thing as a supernatural creation, You
see Carol intent here is to Blast JW's.
So, you actually believe that telling the truth about JW's is
"blasting" them?
She hanged out with them for 2o yr and did not learn this.
Then she knows what she's talking about. It doesn't matter
though. Your lack of credibility comes from your statements, not
hers.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 09:01:13 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
because there is no such thing as a supernatural creation, You
see Carol intent here is to Blast JW's.
So, you actually believe that telling the truth about JW's is
"blasting" them?
Problem here. it is not the truth.
She hanged out with them for 2o yr and did not learn this.
Then she knows what she's talking about. It doesn't matter
though. Your lack of credibility comes from your statements, not
hers.
If she did, she would know JW's are not creationist.
I am currently a JW. and frankly I don't care if I am credible or not.
People chose what to wish to believe. If you believe in magical
supernatural creation go right on ahead and believe so. I do not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- an honest fundy |
18 Jun 2007 04:59:38 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:Jewdi.4402$%t6.1127@trnddc02...
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
because there is no such thing as a supernatural creation, You
see Carol intent here is to Blast JW's.
So, you actually believe that telling the truth about JW's is
"blasting" them?
Problem here. it is not the truth.
BS Antonio. As of yesterday the WTS was still teaching CREATION!!!!!!
She hanged out with them for 2o yr and did not learn this.
Then she knows what she's talking about. It doesn't matter
though. Your lack of credibility comes from your statements, not
hers.
If she did, she would know JW's are not creationist.
So they've suddenly started teaching the theory of evolution? No god/gods
involved? You're calling my old friend, an elder no less, a liar?
I am currently a JW. and frankly I don't care if I am credible or not.
You have no credibility Antonio (jabriol) because you've been caught in
hundreds of contradictions and out right lies. You threaten people and
encourage the depressed to commit suicide. You claim rape is normal. You
GLOATED over Chris Dubose's death and tormented his mother Cynthia. You've
claimed men should "bash her face and head in. Grind her face in gravel" to
control women. You brought your family problems (rapes, illegitimate
children) here and blamed others. Do you think people on Usenet forget the
toxic waste you've spewed here for years and years?
People chose what to wish to believe. If you believe in magical
supernatural creation go right on ahead and believe so. I do not.
Yeah...... the Watchtower now teaches the theory of evolution and I have
some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?D=E4rFl=E4ken?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- an honest fundy |
18 Jun 2007 06:48:17 PM |
|
|
The Apostate wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:Jewdi.4402$%t6.1127@trnddc02...
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
because there is no such thing as a supernatural creation, You
see Carol intent here is to Blast JW's.
So, you actually believe that telling the truth about JW's is
"blasting" them?
Problem here. it is not the truth.
BS Antonio. As of yesterday the WTS was still teaching CREATION!!!!!!
Sure they were teaching creation. I am also going to kill you tonight at
12:45 am, and there are martians waiting to invade washington d.c
because martians are the real alqueda. Anything else running in your
little fantasy world up in your head?
She hanged out with them for 2o yr and did not learn this.
Then she knows what she's talking about. It doesn't matter
though. Your lack of credibility comes from your statements, not
hers.
If she did, she would know JW's are not creationist.
So they've suddenly started teaching the theory of evolution? No
god/gods involved? You're calling my old friend, an elder no less, a liar?
Actually Carol you are a Liar, but in your fantasy world in your
drug-induced brain damage reality.. your elder friend is a liar.
I am currently a JW. and frankly I don't care if I am credible or not.
You have no credibility Antonio (jabriol) because you've been caught in
hundreds of contradictions and out right lies.
Sure Carol sure... now take your meds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- an honest fundy |
18 Jun 2007 10:34:26 PM |
|
|
"DärFläken" impersonated by the criminal Antonio L
Santana/jabriol<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:5REdi.4474$%t6.3410@trnddc02...
Sure they were teaching creation. I am also going to kill you tonight at
12:45 am, and there are martians waiting to invade washington d.c because
martians are the real alqueda. Anything else running in your little
fantasy world up in your head?
Get professional help Antonio L Santana-Candia. You're going off the deep
end again. You're suffering another melt down.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 09:43:55 AM |
|
|
ZilentNoise wrote:
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
because there is no such thing as a supernatural creation,
You see Carol intent here is to Blast JW's.
So, you actually believe that telling the truth about JW's
is "blasting" them?
Problem here. it is not the truth.
From what I've seen, it is the truth. Maybe just an inconvenient
truth for you though.
She hanged out with them for 2o yr and did not learn this.
Then she knows what she's talking about. It doesn't matter
though. Your lack of credibility comes from your statements,
not hers.
If she did, she would know JW's are not creationist.
Then is it evolution or "god did it"?
I am currently a JW. and frankly I don't care if I am credible
or not. People chose what to wish to believe. If you believe
in magical supernatural creation go right on ahead and believe
so. I do not.
I don't believe in any gods so any creation by any god is not
going to be acceptable. I don't "believe" in evolution either. I
understand the arguments, logic, and proofs, that support the
fact of evolution. When one has knowledge of these things,
"belief" is not necessary.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 06:16:48 AM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 4:45 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
LIE!
EVOLUTIONISTS OFFER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID SCIENCE
PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED PAPERS IN REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS THE
WORLD OVER BY PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS.
When you're prepared to stop LYING and present some science supporting
your creation, let us know.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 07:30:01 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 4:45 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
LIE!
EVOLUTIONISTS OFFER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID SCIENCE
PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED PAPERS IN REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS THE
WORLD OVER BY PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS.
Your foaming at he mouth again wipe your chin
When you're prepared to stop LYING and present some science supporting
your creation, let us know.
I am not a creationist, but consider this, Evolutionists now admit that
the fossil record does not support the theories they have long
championed. “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120
years does not exist,” a paleontologist told a conference of
evolutionists in Chicago in 1980. The picture of small changes
accumulating to form new species is false. Instead, “For millions of
years species remain unchanged in the fossil record, and they then
abruptly disappear, to be replaced by something that is substantially
different but clearly related,” a Harvard professor of geology said.
Individual species in the fossil record are characterized by stability,
not by change.
So now a new school has emerged, describing evolution as following a
course of “punctuated equilibrium.” They say a certain species goes
along unchanged for millions of years, and then, in just a few thousand
years, it quickly changes into a new species. They call it
macroevolution. It happens so fast there is no chance to leave a fossil
memento of the transition. However, an older school, which holds to
microevolution, remains unconverted to the new doctrine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Fossil evidence backfire according to biochemist from London University |
17 Jun 2007 07:43:31 AM |
|
|
Dr. D. B. Gower, biochemist from London University, also confirms
that ‘the story of the fossils agrees with the account of Genesis (in
the Bible).’ He says that ‘in the oldest rocks we do not find a series
of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive
creatures to developed forms, but, rather, in the oldest rocks,
developed species suddenly appeared.’ He also observed that between
every major type of plant and animal ‘there was a complete absence of
intermediate fossils.’
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
