| 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: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
20 Jun 2007 04:44:48 PM |
|
|
On Jun 20, 1:48 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist.
Golly, I find it surprising for you would smear someone reputation like
this. Not everyone can walk in a school and get a molecular biology
degree from Berkly and Yale. Do you understand what you are implying here?
Wells's latest book was shredded here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically.html
Go read and see for yourself what kind of "scientist" and "scholar" he
is.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
20 Jun 2007 02:27:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:48:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> in <GDeei.3876$lY5.1278@trnddc07>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I notice that you have snipped out all of the science here. I pointed
out that Wells was right, but that it did not mean what you thought it
might mean. At some point Jabriol either start learning or admit you
really don't want to know.
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist.
Golly, I find it surprising for you would smear someone reputation like
this. Not everyone can walk in a school and get a molecular biology
degree from Berkly and Yale. Do you understand what you are implying here?
I am not implying anything, I stated it flat out. I say it flat out
because Wells has said so. Here it is in his own words:
"Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA
At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was
admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological
Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every
evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the
answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's
many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set
our sights high and accomplish great things.
He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he
frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated
without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included
modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room
for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re-
interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of
human imagination.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism.
When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary
graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the
opportunity to prepare myself for battle."
http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/darwin.htm
And I will make a more important claim: none of Wells' criticisms of
evolutionary biology are presented in any peer-reviewed publication.
At no point has Wells done any research into biology, at no point has
he produced a single fact that contradicts evolution theory. Wells
flashes his degree and trumpets his credentials, but never does any of
the work of a scientist.
Here you can read about the problems with Wells' book _Icons of
Evolution_: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
20 Jun 2007 03:58:35 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:thvi739rbiufmt1rbs0i4gt8a5cu9s6mlj@4ax.com...
Here you can read about the problems with Wells' book _Icons of
Evolution_: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
[brevity snips]
You can be sure jabbers is desperately hunting for something to prove Wells
isn't the crack pot he appears to be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
20 Jun 2007 04:41:04 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:48:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> in <GDeei.3876$lY5.1278@trnddc07>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I notice that you have snipped out all of the science here. I pointed
out that Wells was right, but that it did not mean what you thought it
might mean. At some point Jabriol either start learning or admit you
really don't want to know.
I didn't reply because I agree with most of what you said, not all.
Normally I don't argue points I run to an impasse. You should know this
by now.
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist.
Golly, I find it surprising for you would smear someone reputation like
this. Not everyone can walk in a school and get a molecular biology
degree from Berkly and Yale. Do you understand what you are implying here?
I am not implying anything, I stated it flat out. I say it flat out
because Wells has said so. Here it is in his own words:
Sniped for brevity...
You are implying the following, If you have degree in molecular and
cellular biology, but don't support the ole boys clubs, ergo you are not
a biologist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
20 Jun 2007 05:17:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:41:04 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> in <Q9hei.3903$lY5.584@trnddc07>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:48:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> in <GDeei.3876$lY5.1278@trnddc07>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I notice that you have snipped out all of the science here. I pointed
out that Wells was right, but that it did not mean what you thought it
might mean. At some point Jabriol either start learning or admit you
really don't want to know.
I didn't reply because I agree with most of what you said, not all.
Normally I don't argue points I run to an impasse. You should know this
by now.
It would be of value to mention the agreement, it helps the
communication.
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist.
Golly, I find it surprising for you would smear someone reputation like
this. Not everyone can walk in a school and get a molecular biology
degree from Berkly and Yale. Do you understand what you are implying here?
I am not implying anything, I stated it flat out. I say it flat out
because Wells has said so. Here it is in his own words:
Sniped for brevity...
You are implying the following, If you have degree in molecular and
cellular biology, but don't support the ole boys clubs, ergo you are not
a biologist.
Nope. I am saying two distinct things. One, that having a degree does
not make one a scientists: doing science makes one a scientist. That
Wells has a degree gives him a bit of standing to make comments, but
since his comments go against the entirety of evolutionary biology and
since he produces no evidence and performs no experiments his
pronouncements are not of much worth.
Separately I have shown that Wells went to school for the express
purpose of (mis)using the degree to promote creationism. His reasons
are not from science and not from the evidence but, rather, from his
religious faith. Show me evidence and I will listen, discuss faith and
I get bored.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
20 Jun 2007 07:39:27 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:41:04 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> in <Q9hei.3903$lY5.584@trnddc07>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:48:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> in <GDeei.3876$lY5.1278@trnddc07>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I notice that you have snipped out all of the science here. I pointed
out that Wells was right, but that it did not mean what you thought it
might mean. At some point Jabriol either start learning or admit you
really don't want to know.
I didn't reply because I agree with most of what you said, not all.
Normally I don't argue points I run to an impasse. You should know this
by now.
It would be of value to mention the agreement, it helps the
communication.
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist.
Golly, I find it surprising for you would smear someone reputation like
this. Not everyone can walk in a school and get a molecular biology
degree from Berkly and Yale. Do you understand what you are implying here?
I am not implying anything, I stated it flat out. I say it flat out
because Wells has said so. Here it is in his own words:
Sniped for brevity...
You are implying the following, If you have degree in molecular and
cellular biology, but don't support the ole boys clubs, ergo you are not
a biologist.
Nope. I am saying two distinct things. One, that having a degree does
not make one a scientists: doing science makes one a scientist.
Now Matt, How many time Have I asked, where has evolution been
demonstrated, or has someone attempted to advance evolution, and I get a
long washed out reply? like uh---we have tons of evidence-- based on
what exactly? assumptions and hypothesis. As I've shown in the posted
material, it very difficult to falsify evolution and run it thru the
scientific method.
And I beg to differ, doing research is also doing science.
That
Wells has a degree gives him a bit of standing to make comments, but
since his comments go against the entirety of evolutionary biology and
since he produces no evidence and performs no experiments his
pronouncements are not of much worth.
Oh Come on, If I see on blackboard 2 + 2 = 4 I don't need to count my
fingers to verify this is correct, or use it as an example I know how to
count. Many scientist in the past has take on the ole boys club, and
has moved forward. Me Pop worked in John Hospskin as a microbiologist.
He didn't need to inject somebody with HIV to then help find a cure for
it, nor did doing so made him a scientist. The degree he earned and his
service in the Navy was good enough to allow him to work in various
hospitals and pharmaceuticals, and the man was color blind. Anyone
microbiologist can tell you how important it is to see colors in a lab.
Now then this does not mean I support Well's view, since I do not belive
in magical poof out the air creation by an old guy with a beard fooling
aorund in sitter space. But give him credit where it is due.
Separately I have shown that Wells went to school for the express
purpose of (mis)using the degree to promote creationism. His reasons
are not from science and not from the evidence but, rather, from his
religious faith. Show me evidence and I will listen, discuss faith and
I get bored.
When I went to university, in my time to get my degree in electronics, I
had to study sociology and humanities. I did not care for neither, Yet I
still learned a lot like socio-physics and behaviour modification, I
must admit I use a lot of what I learned.
How many people on the other hand has gotten into biology, and has
dumped their religious beliefs?
Well's may be using his degree for creationism, but if you notice, he is
still examining the evidence and many other biologist who are not
creationist have made corrections in their methods based on his own
research. And research is doing science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
21 Jun 2007 05:33:10 PM |
|
|
On Jun 20, 7:39 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:41:04 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
<ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net> in <Q9hei.3903$lY5.584@trnddc07>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:48:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
<ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net> in <GDeei.3876$lY5.1278@trnddc07>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I notice that you have snipped out all of the science here. I pointed
out that Wells was right, but that it did not mean what you thought it
might mean. At some point Jabriol either start learning or admit you
really don't want to know.
I didn't reply because I agree with most of what you said, not all.
Normally I don't argue points I run to an impasse. You should know this
by now.
It would be of value to mention the agreement, it helps the
communication.
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist.
Golly, I find it surprising for you would smear someone reputation like
this. Not everyone can walk in a school and get a molecular biology
degree from Berkly and Yale. Do you understand what you are implying here?
I am not implying anything, I stated it flat out. I say it flat out
because Wells has said so. Here it is in his own words:
Sniped for brevity...
You are implying the following, If you have degree in molecular and
cellular biology, but don't support the ole boys clubs, ergo you are not
a biologist.
Nope. I am saying two distinct things. One, that having a degree does
not make one a scientists: doing science makes one a scientist.
Now Matt, How many time Have I asked, where has evolution been
demonstrated
I've done this scores of times. Every time, you run away. Here, let
me prove it with these examples:
666 items of evidence for macroevolution:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/cqb3n
Examples 636-666: http://tinyurl.com/ay53o
Time to start running Jabbers.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
19 Jun 2007 11:59:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:19:09 +0000, Mennia wrote:
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
Name one structure on a bird that cannot be produced by a slight
modification of an existing structure on a reptile.
Name any structure on a human that can't be produced by a slight change in
an existing structure on a chimp.
Explain why apes and humans share the same broken gene for producing
vitamin C, while most every other mammal has an intact gene.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentPanzer" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
19 Jun 2007 05:05:59 PM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
Name any structure on a human that can't be produced by a slight change in
an existing structure on a chimp.
bring on the Manpanzee.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
19 Jun 2007 07:41:04 PM |
|
|
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:brYdi.2878$Zh6.1998@trnddc04...
MarkA wrote:
Name any structure on a human that can't be produced by a slight change
in
an existing structure on a chimp.
bring on the Manpanzee.
How is that answering the question? You've been on the manpanzee BS for 10
years now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
20 Jun 2007 04:32:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:19:09 GMT, Mennia <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote in <NYOdi.2823$Zh6.862@trnddc04> :
“There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”—Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
But immediately following it is this:
That the birds owe their origin to reptiles can be argued along
two lines. First, the evidence of the oldest bird in the
geological record clearly indicates reptilian affinities. Second,
if one postulates the stages that would seem to be demanded by
such an evolutionary change, there are appropriate materials
available in certain reptile groups. [Swinton 1960, 1]
Also, the article is "The Origin of Birds", and it's in "Biology and
Comparative Physiology of Birds", Volume I (edited by A. J. Marshall,
New York: Academic Press.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming birds |
19 Jun 2007 11:34:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:19:09 GMT, Mennia <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
“There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”—Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
Of course not, because they came from dinosaurs.
"In a nutshell, the majority of palaeontologists working on the ancestry of
birds agree that dinosaurs, particularly small theropods, are the grandparents
of present-day parrots, partridges and pigeons. There are some detractors to
this emerging orthodoxy but the dino-bird theory is supported by both the most
widely used methodology (cladistics) and a rapidly growing collection of
primitive birds and advanced meat-eating dinosaurs. A reasonable assessment of
the debate would have to conclude that it's all over, including the shouting, in
favour of dino-birds. "
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm
Archaeopteryx, the first good example of a "feathered dinosaur", was discovered
in 1861. The initial specimen was found in the Solnhofen limestone in southern
Germany, which is a lagerstätte, a rare and remarkable geological formation
known for its superbly detailed fossils. The Archaeopteryx is a transitional
fossil, with features clearly intermediate between those of modern reptiles and
birds. Brought to light just two years after Darwin's seminal The Origin of
Species, its discovery spurred the nascent debate between proponents of
evolutionary biology and creationism. This early bird is so dinosaur-like that,
without a clear impression of feathers in the surrounding rock, the Eichstätt
(JM 2257) and Solnhofen (BSP 1999) specimens were for some time mistaken for
Compsognathus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: On reptiles becoming mammals |
19 Jun 2007 02:20:08 PM |
|
|
"Mennia" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:EXOdi.2822$Zh6.1440@trnddc04...
“Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we
consider the first true mammals.”—Life Nature Library, The Mammals, page
37.
“There is no missing link [that connects] mammals and reptiles.”—Life
Nature Library, The Reptiles, page 41.
What is your point?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mennia" |
|
| Title: From ape to man |
19 Jun 2007 06:21:23 AM |
|
|
“Unfortunately, the early stages of man’s evolutionary progress along
his own individual line remain a total mystery.”—Life Nature Library,
The Primates, page 177.
“Even this relatively recent history is shot through with uncertainties;
authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about
details.”—Mankind Evolving, page 168, by Theodosius Dobzhansky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: From ape to man |
19 Jun 2007 02:12:30 PM |
|
|
"JABRIOL" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:T_Odi.2825$Zh6.1266@trnddc04...
“Unfortunately, the early stages of man’s evolutionary progress along his
own individual line remain a total mystery.”—Life Nature Library, The
Primates, page 177.
“Even this relatively recent history is shot through with uncertainties;
authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about
details.”—Mankind Evolving, page 168, by Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Your point is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: From ape to man |
22 Jun 2007 05:01:12 PM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 2:12 pm, "Jabriol" <darth.va...@*****.net> wrote:
"JABRIOL" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:T_Odi.2825$Zh6.1266@trnddc04...
"Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his
own individual line remain a total mystery."-Life Nature Library, The
Primates, page 177.
Publihsed 1965!
"Even this relatively recent history is shot through with uncertainties;
authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about
details."-Mankind Evolving, page 168, by Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Published 1962!
Your point is?
My point is? How about this one: That your arguments are so pathetic
that you have to go back half-a-century to even find something to
gripe about, and then all you can find isn't from any peer-reviewed
science publication but form popular literature.
My point is? How about this one: That you have no science whatsoever
to support your position.
My point is? How about this one: That you dare not even state your
position is because you know how assininely vacuous it is and that it
would be shredded in a half second if you ever found the guts to own
up to it.
That's my point. What's the point of you?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mennia" |
|
| Title: the fossil record-does it really helps?- |
19 Jun 2007 06:24:00 AM |
|
|
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
provide an excellent picture of it, prove it conclusively. Then they say:
‘No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.’
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: the fossil record-does it really helps?- |
19 Jun 2007 05:59:16 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jun, 12:24, Mennia aka JW creationist Jabriol
<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
provide an excellent picture of it, prove it conclusively.
No, they don't. That's the creationist straw-man version of evolution.
The fossil record is great: it shows some of the species that were
alive in the past and provides strong evidence that evolution occured.
By itself, no it is not enough to prove it. But taken alongside all
the other lines of evidence and the case is cast iron.
Andy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wombat" |
|
| Title: Re: the fossil record-does it really helps?- |
19 Jun 2007 10:21:44 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jun, 13:24, Mennia <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
provide an excellent picture of it, prove it conclusively. Then they say:
'No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.'
You losing your touch. No out of date cites, carefully with
suppressed dates. Just the bald assertion. Do you enjoy lying.
Have you ever heard of KNM-WT 15000. How do YOU explain it?
Wombat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: the fossil record-does it really helps?- |
19 Jun 2007 02:24:29 PM |
|
|
"Wombat" <trigby@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:1182266504.269896.37970@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 19 Jun, 13:24, Mennia <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
provide an excellent picture of it, prove it conclusively. Then they say:
'No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.'
You losing your touch. No out of date cites, carefully with
suppressed dates. Just the bald assertion. Do you enjoy lying.
yes.......... your point is?
Have you ever heard of KNM-WT 15000. How do YOU explain it?
Wombat
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: the fossil record-does it really helps?- |
19 Jun 2007 11:49:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:24:00 +0000, Mennia wrote:
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
provide an excellent picture of it, prove it conclusively. Then they say:
'No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.'
Suppose a small population of animals are busy evolving some new structure
or skill. When sufficiently developed, the new structure enables them to
expand into a vast new ecological niche, so that within a few generations
comes forth a huge population of creatures with the new structure,
enjoying a talent that its ancestors didn't have. What would that look
like in the fossil record? Think real hard, now.....
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: the fossil record-does it really helps?- |
19 Jun 2007 02:27:56 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.19.16.49.54.843477@nowhere.com...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:24:00 +0000, Mennia wrote:
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
provide an excellent picture of it, prove it conclusively. Then they say:
'No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.'
Suppose a small population of animals are busy evolving some new structure
or skill. When sufficiently developed, the new structure enables them to
expand into a vast new ecological niche, so that within a few generations
comes forth a huge population of creatures with the new structure,
enjoying a talent that its ancestors didn't have. What would that look
like in the fossil record? Think real hard, now.....
You're asking the troll JABBERS to think? Never happen. :-D He's a real
kOoK claiming he don't believe in evolution or creation. He believes in
terraforming!!!!!!!!!! BTW, he's full of ***** about the WTS now teaching
that the Genesis account should be ignored.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Macroevolution |
19 Jun 2007 06:32:06 AM |
|
|
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Macroevolution |
19 Jun 2007 02:23:48 PM |
|
|
"Kathy" JABRIOL <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:W8Pdi.2828$Zh6.476@trnddc04...
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.
your point is what?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Fish Evolution (troll jabbers impersonates other posters) |
19 Jun 2007 01:35:00 PM |
|
|
"Stan-O" <lctaht@ungo.com> wrote in message
news:k5df7316iqesbgj0mn1lohntord4ts7ics@4ax.com...
Reader's Digest is well known for publishing stuff that fits their
agenda, whether it's accurate or not. That's pretty much the same way
you operate, isn't it Jabbers?
You guys are getting GOOD at spotting Jabbers even when he impersonates
legitimate posters. :-) I notice he's using more and more copy & paste
these last few weeks. Most of it outdated material.
--
SA.........
All trees (like the WTS) can be judged by the fruit (Jabriols) they produce.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.jehovahs-witn/msg/a566a727e31d5be2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 05:00:14 AM |
|
|
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
No one, Jabriol. You know that. The laws just are. No god need apply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mennia" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 05:05:44 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
No one, Jabriol. You know that. The laws just are. No god need apply.
Can you describe the universal 4 constants of the universe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 07:49:58 PM |
|
|
"Mennia" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:YTNdi.4516$%t6.1457@trnddc02...
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation
for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
No one, Jabriol. You know that. The laws just are. No god need apply.
Can you describe the universal 4 constants of the universe?
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Jehovah?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 11:14:17 PM |
|
|
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:f59tjn$e6f$1@news.albasani.net...
"Mennia" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:YTNdi.4516$%t6.1457@trnddc02...
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation
for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
No one, Jabriol. You know that. The laws just are. No god need apply.
Can you describe the universal 4 constants of the universe?
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Jehovah?
Manny, Moe, Jack and a flat tire?
This what you're asking about. I doubt that you understand it at all.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/AuerbachJSE.pdf
http://folk.uio.no/michalj/node1.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
20 Jun 2007 07:16:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:14:17 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net>
wrote:
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:f59tjn$e6f$1@news.albasani.net...
"Mennia" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:YTNdi.4516$%t6.1457@trnddc02...
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation
for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
No one, Jabriol. You know that. The laws just are. No god need apply.
Can you describe the universal 4 constants of the universe?
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Jehovah?
Manny, Moe, Jack and a flat tire?
This what you're asking about. I doubt that you understand it at all.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/AuerbachJSE.pdf
http://folk.uio.no/michalj/node1.html
My kill file increased significantly in size the past week from all of these
sock puppets. But it's sure nice to see a topic that comes in at over 300 msgs
whittled down to about 40 after the "filtering."
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
