He is an evolutionist who belives in evolution...

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2hstjv4o15dmc1ougnmgk726ji5fduufki@Pern.rk...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:09:41 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:

where were you when I brought up, francis hitchings, and the the other
paleontologist?

"Other"? Hitching is a creationist, not a paleontologist.

He is an evolutionist who belives in evolution... read the T.O faqs on
Hitchings.

are suggesting that people who belive in God and evolution are still
creationist?

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2hstjv4o15dmc1ougnmgk726ji5fduufki@Pern.rk...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:09:41 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:

where were you when I brought up, francis hitchings, and the the other
paleontologist?

"Other"? Hitching is a creationist, not a paleontologist.

He is an evolutionist

who belives in evolution... read the T.O faqs on
Hitchings.

are suggesting that people who belive in God and evolution are still
creationist?

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> lied (yet again)
news:<3f3e5124$0$68239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...

"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0308151803.756bd9e3@posting.google.com...

jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote his usual vapid
drivel
news:<20030815183914.31672.qmail@web10808.mail.yahoo.com>...

So which web page or news group did you lift this from without any
form of attribution whatsoever?

A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who
accepts evolution)

And his scientific qualifications are what? Oh, wait a minute, he's
just a journalist, isn't he, and therefore no more qualified to
determine where evolution is at than you are.

What papers (other than The Times, that is) has he published? And
last time I looked, the paper is actually just "The Times", not "The
London Times", BTW. And despite your referencing Booker as a "London
Times Writer" I note that your actual reference is from a
**Johannesburg newspaper and is over 20 years old**.

your point? are you suggesting that those who have no scientific

even though they support evolution should not be called an

What should they be called? "Follower of the Faith"?

Let me make this crystal clear so that even someone of your paltry
intellect can perhaps begin to grasp a smidgeon of it. I'm suggesting
that:

1. You're a thief. (you stole the article from someone else without
attribution).
2. You're a liar. (the article has no relevance, yet you present it as
though it does, you advertise the guy as a "London" Times writer, yet
this article did not appear in the Times and even if it had, what
difference would that have made? The "London" Times is not a
peer-reviewed science publication).
3. Specifically in this case, I am telling you that this article is 20
years out of date (do you deny that?), that the article is irrelevant,
since it is simply an opinion of someone who is not qualified to
challenge evolution, that it contains not a single argument designed
to refute evolution. All it does is claim that there *are* such
arguments. I asked you what those arguments - what those colossal
holes - are, and you have been comprehensively unable to articlutate a
single one. Are you getting any of this?

Do you have a recent (last five years), reference to a paper published
in a peer-reviewed science journal that either calls the theory into
serious doubt or establishes firm evidence for creation?

oh they are out there by the dozens, point is..

The point is that you are a cowardly liar. If there are such
articles, then list them or shut up about it. LIST THEM JABRIOL and
support them in debate, OR SHUT UP WITH YOUR ***** AND LIES. Get
it?

would you accept it.. nope..

Would I accept your demonstrable lies? No! Would I accept your
endless unsupported blind faith assertions? No! Would I accept your
repeated and irrelevant articles from antiquity? No! IF YOU HAVE THE
MATERIAL POST IT (with attribution). IF YOU HAVE THE REFERENCES, POST
THEM. Otheriwse admit what a cheat and liar you are.

Here again is the challenge I made, spelled out so you cannot pretend
it was never made nor weasel out of it: Give me references to
articles published in standard peer-reviewed science journals that
EITHER establish a solid case for creation OR call the Theory of
Evolution into serious doubt. LIST THEM, JABRIOL OR SHUT UP WITH YOUR
DOGSHIT LIES.

Note that creationist web sites and books do not count
as peer-reviewed science publications, nor do ancient, unsupported
articles written for no purpose other than to stir up controversy and
generate newspaper sales.

you wouldnt, I just posted in another thread about the

info..

THEN POST A REFERENCE TO IT OR THIS IS YET ANOTHER IN AN ENDLESS
STREAM OF LIES AND ***** WHICH YOU ARE FAMOUS FOR? WHERE IS THE
ARTICLE? GIVE ME A GOOGLE THREAD REFERENCE AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO GO
THERE AND DETAIL FOR THE WORLD THE LIES AND ***** YOU HAVE POSTED
THERE ALSO.

did you read it.. I dont think so...

Did you write it? I don't think so, and all we will ever have is your
trashy word for it until and unless you learn to RENOUNCE COWARDICE
AND START POSTING REFERENCES.

, said this about it: "It was a

beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only
trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least
partly aware, it was full of colossal holes."

Yet I notice a complete and utter lack of explanation or evidence as
to what these holes are supposed to be.

do the research.. I mentioned one...

You didn't mention jack.

You simply posted an article, as you
frequently do, stolen from someone else, without attribution, as your
posts frequently are. The article itself never mentioned what these
"colossal holes" were supposed to be, and neither did you. NOW ONCE
AGAIN, WHAT ARE THE HOLES? Name them. Name even one. You are the
one claiming the holes. I am the one denying their existence. Why
should I waste my time "doing the research" into non-existent holes?
YOU DO THE RESEARCH - IF YOU CAN FIND ANY HOLES - AND POST YOUR
RESULTS HERE. OR ADMIT THAT YOU ARE FULL OF *****.

Here is the entire quote you stole and posted: " A London Times
writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about
it: "It was a
beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that,
as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal
holes." Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, he observed: "We have
here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for
explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind."
Booker also stated: "A century after Darwin's death,
we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of
how evolution really took place-and in recent years this has led to an
extraordinary
series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost
open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of
[evolutionary] sect urging some new modification." He concluded: "As
to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and
probably never shall."

The Star, Johannesburg, "The Evolution of a Theory", by Christopher
Booker, April 20, 1982, p. 19."

Where is the mention of even one of these colossal holes? And what
evidence do you have, even if there had been such holes, that they
have not been filled in over the two decades since this antique
article was published? Posting an article where someone who is not
qualified to pontificate on the subject simply mentions that he
believes there are holes in a theory is not the equivalent of defining
what those holes are. Can you begin to grasp this? Now once again,
what are these holes? If you posted them in response not to me but to
someone else, THEN GIVE ME A REFERENCE.

the scientific method..

I have seen from other threads that you cannot even begin to grasp
what that is, so let's not even go there.

Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, he observed: "We
have here the supreme irony that a book which has
become famous for explaining the origin of species in
fact does nothing of the kind."

This myth contineus to be perpetrated by the ignoranti. Darwin did
not specifically state "and this is how speciation takes place" but he
made it repeatedly and abundantly clear how it does take place - for
those with the intellect and honesty to grasp it.

sure...only a select eh?

Like that answers anything? Why is it that when those who post trash
that questions evolution are challenged on it, they hide behind
cryptic comments and totally avoid dealing with the difficult
challenges that are slammed into their cowardly faces?

Booker also stated: "A century after Darwin's death,
we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even
plausible idea of how evolution really took place-and
in recent years this has led to an extraordinary
series of battles over the whole question.

Well how about mutation and natural selection, both of which we see in
operation in nature and in the lab?

nobody denies mutation, this proves exactly what?
and as for Natural Selction, Human have proved this wrong..

Then detail where they have proved it wrong.

If you can. I won't
hold my breath, since you have also failed to do this in another
thread.

Evolution is nothing more than a change in allele frequency in a
population over time. This is all it takes to lead to speciation.
This has been demonstrated in the wild and in the lab. Fossil and
genetic evidence is also abundant. Speciation has been documented -
not in computer models but in reality. Do you deny this? Where is
your evidence to show that this *does not* lead to new species?

next point?

I just skewered you with it.

Speciation has been observed in

nature and in the lab.

to which of the more than the five contradictory defintions of

are you referring to?

There is only one definition of evolution. I just gave it.

The fact
that creationists keep inventing new "strawman" definitions just to
try and knock them down is irrelevant.

If you have others, list them,
but let me clear the deck, first. Macro- and micro-evolution are
different positions on the same sliding scale. Punctuated equilibria
is a subset of the Theory of evolution, not a "new theory of
evolution". Now do you *still* have contrary definitions? If so,
THEN POST THEM OR POST REFERENCES TO WHERE YOU HAVE ALREADY POSTED
THEM INSTEAD OF SIMPLY SAYING YOU HAVE.

Are you beginning to grasp the central theme here - that you actually
have to set down an argument rather than simply saying you have an
argument? That you have to post references to your supportive
material instead of simply saying you have it? Otherwise all you have
is hot air and lies.

What else do you need to be hit over the head
with?

evidence, and the ability to duplicate the process outside of computer
modeling.

I never mentioned computer modelling. I am talking about real life
cases. Here are some references to bring you out of the dark ages:

Observed Instances of Speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Transitional vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Horse evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/

Human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Now where are *your* references to the material that supports your
arguments, that I have repeatdly asked for and of which you have so
far failed to offer even one?

Do you deny that human and chimpanzee DNA are almost identical? If
*not*, then what is it that prevented a common ancestor from giving
rise to both species? If it is markedly different, then define these
differences, and explain why there are, nevertheless, obvious
similarities, not only in functional DNA but in shared errors in that
DNA:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

with every kind of
[evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."

Lie. That's the creationists you are talking about who cannot even
agree on the age of the Earth.

Wrong, read my article on Neanderthals.. and I am not a creationist.

I never said you were a creationist I simply said it was the
creationists who are in disarray, not the evolutionists. If I am
going too fast for you, please let me know and I will slow it down to
kindergarten level. I do realize that's where you're at with your
mindset.

And if you want me to read yet more of your horseshit, then you are
GOING TO HAVE TO POST A REFERENCE AT SOME POINT OR ADMIT YOU ARE
NOTHING BUT AN OVER-INFLATED BAG OF LIES.

He concluded: "As to how and why it really happened, we
have not the slightest idea and probably never shall."

Lie.

ok.. explain abiogeneis ans the mechanism of evolution from that

point as oppose to panspermia...

Abiogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution,

"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0308151803.756bd9e3@posting.google.com...
your point? are you suggesting that those who have no scientific background,
even though they support evolution should not be called an "evolutionist"?

What should they be called? "Follower of the Faith"?

Do you have a recent (last five years), reference to a paper published
in a peer-reviewed science journal that either calls the theory into
serious doubt or establishes firm evidence for creation?

oh they are out there by the dozens, point is.. would you accept it.. nope..
you wouldnt, I just posted in another thread about the Neanderthal..recent
info..

, said this about it: "It was a

beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only
trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least
partly aware, it was full of colossal holes."

Yet I notice a complete and utter lack of explanation or evidence as
to what these holes are supposed to be.

do the research.. I mentioned one...
the scientific method..

Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, he observed: "We
have here the supreme irony that a book which has
become famous for explaining the origin of species in
fact does nothing of the kind."

This myth contineus to be perpetrated by the ignoranti. Darwin did
not specifically state "and this is how speciation takes place" but he
made it repeatedly and abundantly clear how it does take place - for
those with the intellect and honesty to grasp it.

sure...only a select eh?

Booker also stated: "A century after Darwin's death,
we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even
plausible idea of how evolution really took place-and
in recent years this has led to an extraordinary
series of battles over the whole question.

Well how about mutation and natural selection, both of which we see in
operation in nature and in the lab?

nobody denies mutation, this proves exactly what?

and as for Natural Selction, Human have proved this wrong..

What else do you need to be hit over the head
with?

evidence, and the ability to duplicate the process outside of computer
modeling.

If you have evidence of these "colossal holes", then please do let's
debate them right here in a.a. or on the Internet news group or web
site of *your* choice. Bring along all the friends and support you
need. Martial all your stolen without attribute quotes and let's
thrash them out, shall we?

just did

I will take you all on. Can you do it, or are you just another sniper
of the same moral terpitude as those cowardly assholes up in Maryland
a few months ago?

those guys are primary example of Natural selection in action

with every kind of
[evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."

Lie. That's the creationists you are talking about who cannot even
agree on the age of the Earth.

Wrong, read my article on Neanderthals.

and I am not a creationist.

He concluded: "As to how and why it really happened, we
have not the slightest idea and probably never shall."

Lie.

ok.. explain abiogeneis

ans the mechanism of evolution

from that starting point

The Star, Johannesburg, "The Evolution of a Theory",
by Christopher Booker, April 20, 1982, p. 19.

Now quit posting this ***** and lies or have the goddamned decency
to stand up for your ***** and support it in debate.

ahh it is lie because you say so?