"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral
insects looked like."-Life Nature Library, The Insects, page 14.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:53:17 GMT, DärFläken <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral
insects looked like."-Life Nature Library, The Insects, page 14.

Jabbers, I think *you* are the proof of an insect fossil - at least
your mind is...

On Jun 16, 5:16 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:

We are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that
evolution really did take place.

LIE!

Budikka

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:15:37 -0700,

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:15:37 -0700,

On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:

On 15 Jun, 15:42, JW Creationist "~saba gracile~"<veron...@frisurf.no> wrote:

<trim for brevity>

Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.

The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?

Andy

So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million years?
Surely a theory that's so grounded and nailed to the wall with evidence will
be able to predict what happens to organisms in the future? Or does that too
have to be wildly imagined? I thought so. I've never heard anyone try to
predict what a lion will be, what a giraffe would be etc.. hm. Perhaps because
it's embarrassing to the mighty scientists to do that? but why? because that
would be_imagining_ things.. lol.. just like they do with the animals evolusion,
but hey! that's facts!

Saba

Do you get some sort of kick out of parading your monstrous ignorance
in public? You quite obviously don't know the first thing about
anything you post. Or is being wrong some sort of hobby for you? Try
to get at least a basic understanding of the subject before you go
flailing in like a drunken elephant.

Evolution theory does not say that the future forms of species can be
predicted, and never did, in fact it says pretty much the opposite:
you can never say what a species will develop into in the future. What
you can say is that the species will adapt to whatever environment it
finds itself in, or likely die off, but you can't say how that will
come about.

And if I had told you that in a million years, lions will be purple,
how are you ever going to check?

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Andy,
No, I like to parade othere people's monstrous personalities out on
this forum just to see who likes to bully people.

How can you bully anyone in a newsgroup, Sport? If you feel
intimidated by words on a screen, no matter how impolite they may be,
I would suggest that perhaps Usenet isn't the proper environment for
one of such delicate sensibilities.

In short, Skippy, if you're thin-skinned, this ain't the place for you
to be hanging out. Especially alt.atheism.

I see I have one
now. So here is yours, you titanic ego is sinking faster than the
ship in 1912.

While yours, on the other hand, appears to be adequately kept afloat
by prodigious amounts of hot air.....

I have more than a basic understanding of evolution

Suppose you give us a brief example, then, wot? Something basic, like,
say, a short definition of 'allopatric speciation' and a simple
illustration of how it works in nature. In your own words, of course.
No copy and paste allowed.

Here, use this space;

(By the way, Skippy, this is 'Evolution 101'. If you're stumped, all
you have to do is Google it. <G>)














Bear in mind, I'm not saying you *don't* have some understanding of
evolution (although I've seen precious little indication of it in your
posts), but every creationist who passes through here claims to know
more about it than Darwin, Gould and Dawkins put together, so you're
going to have to back up your claim if you expect to be taken
seriously.

and
if you don't know what the Cambridge University tests published say,
who is the drunken flailing elephant here?

The fact that some as yet undetermined cause nearly wiped out the
human species approximately 60,000 - 70,000 years ago was well known
long before the Cambridge study, so yes, all modern humans *are*
descended from those few thousand survivors. That does *not* mean we
aren't related to humans older than 60,000 years.

As someone else already asked, where did the Cambridge researchers
obtain viable 120,000 year old human DNA to make their determination?
Or viable 60,000 year old DNA, for that matter. DNA degrades very
rapidly, and it's extremely doubtful that enough would remain after
that length of time to yield any sort of useful result, assuming that
any remained at all. From what I can see, the Cambridge study,
assuming you've described it accurately, appears to be seriously
flawed.

You would I say, keep up
and pay attention of take your ADD meds. I never said anything like
what you posted.

Nobody said you did, Sport. Andy was responding to a post by the
creationist troll "~saba gracile~", who, as it happens, *is*
completely scientifically illiterate, and *is* an arrogant, posturing
fool.

You simply saw someone who you thought you could
jump on.

Here's a free clue for ya, Sunshine. When you barge into alt.atheism
pushing your religion, a whole hell of a lot of people are going to
jump, and most of them aren't going to be polite about it. We see at
least a dozen idiots like "~saba gracile~" on a *slow* day, and I'm
afraid our patience ran out a long time ago.

Kiss my *****. I have studied evolution since you were in
diapers,

Uh huh. And I'm Little Red Riding Hood.

Why, oh why, do these religious types *always* claim to have a
scientific background when their every post screams, "I'm clueless?"

or you would not have responded like you did. Notice
ZilentNoise response, very professonial, not trying to embarress
anyone.

Jabbers? Professional? Yeah, a professional troll.

Jabbers doesn't understand the first thing about science in general,
let alone evolutionary biology. He copies and pastes his drivel from
Watchtower Society tracts.

One question: Why in the hell would a lion be purple in a
million years? Only one reason. The fauna it is hiding in to attack
it's prey would be purple.

The *fauna* it is hiding in?

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!

Yeah, Skippy. You're a real science wiz, alright. I'm surprised you
can spell it.

While you can't always give a reason,
there is logical answer to a question. *****. K.W.

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9o4uk4-93f.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...

[snips]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:42:47 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:

So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million
years?

Perhaps you're unaware that evolution encompasses the inclusion of random
elements, which means a prediction of that sort is effectively impossible?
If so, then your question is dishonest. If not, you should learn
something of the subject.

Kelsey,

Obviously the question is disingenuous (at best). The poster is attempting to undermine the
scientific reasoning founding evolution through the suggestion that, since "evolutionary science"
cannot make the kinds of highly precise predictions that are regular made through, for example,
physics, then "evolution" must be false. The original poster seems either not to know or not to
care that the parameters and imperatives of differing fields within science are more amenable to
strict, precise prediction than others. Thus, the situations are sufficiently different to
undermine whatever analogy he/she was about to head towards. As you so nicely pointed out,
however, the really nastily dishonest bit is that creationism cannot even approximally either
predict or retrodict, much less wit any degree of success but must rely upon a continuing series
of increasingly complex "miracles" to bolster their belief system.

As has been said many times before, creationists are either ignorant, liars, or both.