| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2005 12:29:19 PM |
| Object: |
EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:12:15 GMT, "H Dickmann"
<HERPEM@bigpond.com> spake thusly:
"IKnowHimDoYou- A." <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-0209050801580001@pm4-31.kalama.com...
The Miserable
So many here are suffering a miserable life. No meaning, no purpose, no
hope and no known destination. They tell us this by their posts, their
words and their attitudes. They envy those of us who know who we are, why
we are here, and know where we are going. Since they have none of these
they mock us but not really us but God the Creator of all life whom they
do not know. It is pathethic to see these poor lost souls wandering
around trying to puff themselves up pretending they are somone and know
something. The more vociferous they are the more they show us how lost
they are.
The basic problem with them is their false pride...
The basic problem is that thousands of atheists are being created every day
by fundamentalists who insist that the earth is only a few thousand years
old.
Atheists refuse to believe in God, because they don't
wish to be accountable for their actions and it is
their desire to do whatever they want sexually, that
drives them to this. It has nothing to do with the age
of the Earth. Even if they knew it was 6,000 years
old, they would still reject God and try to invent some
other method of it happening that quickly. This is
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The belief in long ages, was an idea, nothing more and
it was not based on any evidence. It was a supposition
by a man, who decided that God wasn't needed, just
time. This was before any dating methods. That
supposition was uniformitarianism, which developed in
the late 1700's. James Hutton presented this idea in
1785 and had zero evidence for it. There were no
dating methods to show any age of the Earth.
People who wanted to reject God, flocked to this idea.
Neither then, nor now, is there one shred of evidence
that life comes from non-living matter, all by itself.
It cannot be tested, nor can it be demonstrated in any
way and every attempt, including Urey-Miller, failed
and their test failed, even though they tried to stack
the deck. But they knew that vast amounts of time
would be necessary to at least suggest the idea. And
contrary to the evolutionists claim, long periods of
time, abiogenesis and evolution, are all tied together.
It is only in recent history, that we see evolutionists
trying to separate the ideas, as if one has nothing to
do with any of the others. They do this, because they
know how embarrassing these suppositions are and
that they cannot be defended scientifically. They also
try to redefined the terms "abiogenesis" and
macroevolution, so that they won't have to provide the
required evidence for the terms, as they actually are
defined.
Lyle presented another idea and the Geologic Column
was used for dating. It was a circular argument. The
fossils dated the rocks and the rocks dated the
fossils. There were no dating methods in place to tell
them any age, except this new idea, which could only be
argued using that very same circular reasoning.
The fact is, that even the methods used today, are
built on certain erroneous assumptions, one of which is
a constant rate of decay that has never changed and
Westinghouse Labs proved a while ago, that it can be
changed. I.e., catastrophic events can indeed make
something appear older than it really is, when using
these methods to date them. Of course, the Bible shows
such an event, but they reject that idea, because they
don't WANT to believe it and claim there is no evidence
for it, preferring to believe that solid rock bends
slowly, when in reality, it could only bend to those
degrees while soft, which is what a flood would have
done. This evidence is all over the Earth, but is
rejected. They then see catastrophic events in our
time, which do the same thing with localized floods and
still, won't accept that the world was flooded, even
though the same thing is seen world wide.
A closed system is also assumed. That nothing can
interfere, such as catastrophic events, when no such
thing exists (a closed system) in nature. There are
even more assumptions made. Yet the evolutionist must
contradict himself and admit to catastrophic events.
They even see canyons being carved out in days and know
this. Yet, when they look at canyons that already
existed before scientific research, they assume they
formed over millions of years. It is assumed, not
proved. They point to the strata as evidence of slow
formation. Yet the same strata is shown in a canyon
that only took days to form, in front of our eyes.
Darwin proposed evolution and had not one shred of
evidence for macroevolution. None at all. Seeing
finches with different length beaks and a variety of a
type of turtle, does not show that the birds and
turtles came from non-birds and non-turtles. Darwin
himself knew that he didn't have the evidence for what
he believed and said so in the very same book that
evolutionists claim defines the evidence of what they
believe. In fact, he devoted a chapter to it saying he
didn't have the evidence and admitted himself that it
was AN IDEA and nothing more. He stated clearly that
he hoped that ONE DAY the evidence would be found
and even though to this day it hasn't been, it is still
believed.
So when evolutionists claim that evolution as they
claim it happened, is based on seeing the evidence
and then formulating the hypothesis, they are lying.
How many atheists did you create today with your false pride?
It is not pride to submit to the word of God. It is an
act of humility. Pride is claiming that God's word is
wrong and you are right and that is exactly what you
are doing. So don't point the finger our way. Rather,
look in the mirror and point it at the guy you see
there.
So you believe what you want. But don't tell me an old
Earth would make Christians out of atheists. That's
ridiculous! Especially considering that this whole
idea of an old Earth was proposed only as an
alternative to rejecting the idea that God created the
Earth, period and they pointed to an old Earth as an
ALTERNATIVE to believing that God did it. The Bible
could have said, "millions of years ago" and they would
still have presented abiogenesis, for which there was
zero evidence and yet, was believed and still is today,
when there is still zero evidence. Please explain how
an old Earth would make believers out of atheists, when
they have already chosen to believe in abiogenesis,
without one shred of evidence for it, even though it
contradicts a basic law in science? And why do they
claim that science corrects itself and then, when it is
shown that the belief that cells were just a lump of
protoplasm is why they it might be easy for abiogenesis
to happen was wrong, they don't reject the idea,
knowing now that each cell is more complex than any
supercomputer ever created and at least as complex
as a major city?
No, they do not reject God based on the age of the
Earth. They reject God because He interferes with
their lusts.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
03 Sep 2005 12:44:57 PM |
|
|
"pasta Dave" <> wrote in message ...
EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US
Amazing how the pasta, goes on and on about evolutionists.
Lets face it, in his circular logic, if he can cast doubt on evolutionary
theories, that will somehow prove his own theories??
It's amazing the number of people who come on here, bashing evolution,
fossil records, as if to disprove that theory, somehow proves their theory.
The problem is that there is no evidence for anything they say.
If you read your textbooks, it talks about the theory of evolution.
Can you understand that. A theory!!
But a theory based on science, even if it is a best guess.
On the other hand, you have creationists. They will argue, that the world is
a complicated place, so there must have been intelligent design.
There had to be a god to create such a beautiful, complicated world.
But just ask them, who created the creator.
Suddenly they are off on a fairy tale, of how the creator just always was!!
Do they have any evidence.
Oh, right. An old book.
Why do they accept that old book, and not summerian clay tablets that tells
us that visitors from the heavens, cloned man, to work in the gold mines for
them??
See the whole problem with the divine creator, is that every civilization
from the beginning of time had a divine creator. Some magical unseen godman
or goddess who created.
But christians throw out all those stories as fables, and only their fable
is true.
It really is an amusing concept.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
03 Sep 2005 08:29:24 PM |
|
|
Zadok wrote:
"pasta Dave" <> wrote in message ...
EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US
Amazing how the pasta, goes on and on about evolutionists.
Lets face it, in his circular logic, if he can cast doubt on evolutionary
theories, that will somehow prove his own theories??
===>He doesn't have any theories, only baseless "faith"
in some Extraterrestrial "creator(s)". -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
03 Sep 2005 02:56:07 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1cljh1pecjev1uvukfof25fv6m8m7s9lj0@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:12:15 GMT, "H Dickmann"
<HERPEM@bigpond.com> spake thusly:
"IKnowHimDoYou- A." <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-0209050801580001@pm4-31.kalama.com...
The Miserable
So many here are suffering a miserable life. No meaning, no
purpose, no hope and no known destination. They tell us this by
their posts, their words and their attitudes. They envy those of us
who know who we are, why we are here, and know where we are going.
Since they have none of these they mock us but not really us but God
the Creator of all life whom they do not know. It is pathethic to
see these poor lost souls wandering around trying to puff themselves
up pretending they are somone and know something. The more
vociferous they are the more they show us how lost they are.
The basic problem with them is their false pride...
The basic problem is that thousands of atheists are being created
every day by fundamentalists who insist that the earth is only a few
thousand years old.
Atheists refuse to believe in God, because they don't
wish to be accountable for their actions and it is
I haven't noticed that YOU (for example) are in any bigger hurry to be
accountable for your actions than any atheist of my acquaintance.
their desire to do whatever they want sexually, that
drives them to this. It has nothing to do with the age
of the Earth. Even if they knew it was 6,000 years
It has a LOT to do with being truthful. You are not being very
convincing when you lie to support what you call truth.
old, they would still reject God and try to invent some
other method of it happening that quickly. This is
Their rejection of God is, however, understandable. They don't believe
in Him. What's YOUR excuse for rejecting God?
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual change does not
occur. It does show that it's not the only (or even most common) mode of
evolution. But the fossil record is not the principle evidence for
evolution. That's in the genetics. And now that the chimp genome is
done (first draft) and can be compared directly to our own, it's becoming
abundantly clear that the only way you can support the separate creation
of chimps and chumps is to posit an INSANE god doing it. Either that or
God created evolution and evolution created humans and chimps. You can
take the physical evidence and accept it, or you can tell lies about it
until you wake up in a lake of fire. Those are your only two choices,
really.
The belief in long ages, was an idea, nothing more and
it was not based on any evidence. It was a supposition
This is a FLAT OUT LIE. Who told you this lie (or did you just make it
up from whole cloth)?
by a man, who decided that God wasn't needed, just
time. This was before any dating methods. That
supposition was uniformitarianism, which developed in
the late 1700's. James Hutton presented this idea in
1785 and had zero evidence for it. There were no
dating methods to show any age of the Earth.
True, back then the only thing you could use was sedimentation rates and
you had to more or less assume that they were at least close to uniform.
In fact, the first such attempt I'm aware of was mounted by Herodotus in
the 5th century BCE, who estimated the age of the Nile delta at the time
to be several tens of thousands of years.
People who wanted to reject God, flocked to this idea.
Possibly. But you have no evidence that the people who flocked to it all
did so out of a desire to reject God. Nor do God-rejecters always flock
to scientific explanations. Your own behaviour and that of your fellow
God-rejecters is ample proof of that.
Neither then, nor now, is there one shred of evidence
that life comes from non-living matter, all by itself.
Actually, every bit of living tissue on the planet has OBSERVABLY done
so, catalyzed by the DNA of present and ancestral living organisms.
It cannot be tested, nor can it be demonstrated in any
way and every attempt, including Urey-Miller, failed
and their test failed, even though they tried to stack
the deck. But they knew that vast amounts of time
Uh, what, then are we to make of experiments in the 1990's where
molecules of 200 atoms and less were shown to have the property of
evolving by mutation and natural selection. For evolution to work, it
need only get started. Such atoms are small enough to be well within the
range of random polymers.
would be necessary to at least suggest the idea. And
There have been organics in the universe for at least 10 billion years.
That's ten MILLION millenia (compared with the mere six that your idiocy
keeps claiming is all there ever were). This is an observation and is
not debatable except by liars who wish to impose their lies as truth.
contrary to the evolutionists claim, long periods of
time, abiogenesis and evolution, are all tied together.
To some extent, yes they are. The sheer number of fossil ecologies shown
in the fossil record could not possibly succeed one another in a mere
6000 years.
It is only in recent history, that we see evolutionists
trying to separate the ideas, as if one has nothing to
do with any of the others. They do this, because they
Uh, the idea that life evolved from precursor chemicals is a very
different proposition from the claim that humans and chimps share a
common genetic ancestor. The first is called abiogenesis or chemical
evolution. The latter is biological evolution, pure and simple.
Nor does the latter REQUIRE the former. You could prove tomorrow beyond
ANY doubt that God created the first life out of nothing and you would
still have to explain the evidence for common genetic ancestry of humans
and chimps.
know how embarrassing these suppositions are and
that they cannot be defended scientifically. They also
try to redefined the terms "abiogenesis" and
macroevolution, so that they won't have to provide the
required evidence for the terms, as they actually are
defined.
You mean as you want to force them to be defined in your lies.
Lyle presented another idea and the Geologic Column
was used for dating. It was a circular argument. The
fossils dated the rocks and the rocks dated the
fossils. There were no dating methods in place to tell
them any age, except this new idea, which could only be
argued using that very same circular reasoning.
This is another lie. And, since I've corrected you very carefully on it
before, it is a DAMN lie. In other words, you are deliberately trying to
deceive your readers here. At first, rocks were dated by estimating
sedimentation rates. Later, radiometric methods (and a couple of others)
became available to date rocks absolutely. Modern isochron methods, when
properly used, provide very consistent and reliable dates for rocks.
Creationist lying scum, whose motives are not even close to pure, have
made a habit of collecting samples that the literature specifically says
are NOT suitable for dating and then insisting on labs dating them
anyway. I'm not impressed by such "apologetics" and the stench of
rotting, sulphurous matter is strong around the apologists.
The fact is, that even the methods used today, are
built on certain erroneous assumptions, one of which is
a constant rate of decay that has never changed and
Westinghouse Labs proved a while ago, that it can be
changed. I.e., catastrophic events can indeed make
Yes, actually they did prove that it takes forces way greater than those
required to vaporize the rock to change the rates. Thank you for
noticing. What scientists "assume" is that the laws of physics stayed
the same. We have tested those laws and we know what it takes to change
(by a very small amount) those rates of decay. It always involves
conditions under which a rock would be vaporized, which would reset an
isochron anyway.
something appear older than it really is, when using
these methods to date them. Of course, the Bible shows
Almost always, what is happening is that the geochemical event we're
trying to date was not sufficient to reset the clocks, so we're measuring
an earlier date. But that's no help to your 6000-year-old earth
nonsense.
such an event, but they reject that idea, because they
don't WANT to believe it and claim there is no evidence
for it, preferring to believe that solid rock bends
slowly, when in reality, it could only bend to those
degrees while soft, which is what a flood would have
done. This evidence is all over the Earth, but is
Please demonstrate the mechanism by which a flood sorts isochrons.
Please tell me how many professional creationist apologists are actually
researching such a method and how much MONEY they are spending on the
research. Please note that such a mechanism would be easily the basis of
a billion-dollar patent.
I'll tell you right now, there is no MONEY being wasted by professional
creationists on this project. Why? Because they know damn well it is
fruitless. But that's not what they tell YOU. Why do you believe such
people?
rejected. They then see catastrophic events in our
time, which do the same thing with localized floods and
still, won't accept that the world was flooded, even
though the same thing is seen world wide.
Actually the same thing is NOT seen world wide in the consistent
stratigraphic manner that it should be seen if there were ever a global
flood event.
A closed system is also assumed. That nothing can
interfere, such as catastrophic events, when no such
thing exists (a closed system) in nature. There are
even more assumptions made. Yet the evolutionist must
contradict himself and admit to catastrophic events.
Show me a catastrophic event that can make isochrons run out really
rapidly by increasing radioactive decay to a million times current rates
WITHOUT vaporizing the rocks that the change is supposed to be occurring
in.
They even see canyons being carved out in days and know
this. Yet, when they look at canyons that already
existed before scientific research, they assume they
formed over millions of years. It is assumed, not
proved. They point to the strata as evidence of slow
formation. Yet the same strata is shown in a canyon
that only took days to form, in front of our eyes.
It's not the amount of time the canyon took to carve, moron, it's the
amount of time the sediments it carved itself through took to lay down in
their present form that's of interest.
Darwin proposed evolution and had not one shred of
evidence for macroevolution. None at all. Seeing
Not exactly. He had at least some idea of the fossil record which
implies macroevolution. In fact, it wasn't really Darwin's idea in the
first place. His contribution was to propose a mechanism for it.
finches with different length beaks and a variety of a
type of turtle, does not show that the birds and
turtles came from non-birds and non-turtles. Darwin
himself knew that he didn't have the evidence for what
he believed and said so in the very same book that
evolutionists claim defines the evidence of what they
believe. In fact, he devoted a chapter to it saying he
didn't have the evidence and admitted himself that it
was AN IDEA and nothing more. He stated clearly that
he hoped that ONE DAY the evidence would be found
and even though to this day it hasn't been, it is still
believed.
So did humans and chimps inherit their genetic scars from a common
ancestor or are they separately created by a nutjob?
So when evolutionists claim that evolution as they
claim it happened, is based on seeing the evidence
and then formulating the hypothesis, they are lying.
Now YOU are lying. Why do you do this in God's name? Surely you know
the consequences?
How many atheists did you create today with your false pride?
It is not pride to submit to the word of God. It is an
Since when is bearing false witness in God's name SUBMITTING to His word?
act of humility. Pride is claiming that God's word is
wrong and you are right and that is exactly what you
are doing. So don't point the finger our way. Rather,
look in the mirror and point it at the guy you see
there.
Pride is claiming that your private interpretation of scripture is God's
word and is inerrant. And yes, I am pointing the finger your way. In
fact, GOD is pointing the finger YOUR way and you had better listen to
Him or face the consequences.
So you believe what you want. But don't tell me an old
Why shouldn't he? YOU clearly do.
Earth would make Christians out of atheists. That's
Maybe not, but it would leave less room for them to claim that we're all
nutjobs like you clearly want them to think.
ridiculous! Especially considering that this whole
idea of an old Earth was proposed only as an
alternative to rejecting the idea that God created the
Earth, period and they pointed to an old Earth as an
ALTERNATIVE to believing that God did it. The Bible
More lies. Boy, you must be having breakfast with the arch-fiend every
day to be so well equipped with insidious fibs.
could have said, "millions of years ago" and they would
still have presented abiogenesis, for which there was
zero evidence and yet, was believed and still is today,
when there is still zero evidence. Please explain how
an old Earth would make believers out of atheists, when
they have already chosen to believe in abiogenesis,
without one shred of evidence for it, even though it
contradicts a basic law in science? And why do they
More lies. When will you stop? Of course, in that lake of fire, nobody
will actually MAKE you stop!
claim that science corrects itself and then, when it is
shown that the belief that cells were just a lump of
protoplasm is why they it might be easy for abiogenesis
to happen was wrong, they don't reject the idea,
knowing now that each cell is more complex than any
supercomputer ever created and at least as complex
as a major city?
No, they do not reject God based on the age of the
Earth. They reject God because He interferes with
their lusts.
Is that why YOU reject Him? Does He interfere with your lusts?
Inquiring minds want to know.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
04 Sep 2005 10:32:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
The belief in long ages, was an idea, nothing more and
it was not based on any evidence. It was a supposition
This is a FLAT OUT LIE. Who told you this lie (or did you just make it
up from whole cloth)?
A flat out lie, he says. No watch, folks...
by a man, who decided that God wasn't needed, just
time. This was before any dating methods. That
supposition was uniformitarianism, which developed in
the late 1700's. James Hutton presented this idea in
1785 and had zero evidence for it. There were no
dating methods to show any age of the Earth.
True, back then the only thing you could use was sedimentation rates and
you had to more or less assume that they were at least close to uniform.
You see folks, I lied when I said that it began as
an idea. A supposition. But I'm right in that there
were no dating methods to support it and that it
was, in this posters' own words, "assumed", which
means that it couldn't be supported and they
assumed it, which means I didn't lie about it being
an idea that they assumed to be true and tried to
support, but did not have the evidence for, instead
of their claim that it was based on the evidence of
an old Earth and fossils and the idea formed out
of that. So by his own admission, what I said is true
and yet, he calls me a liar. This is the contradiction
of the evolutionist. <chuckle>
As for the rest, you can figure it out. :)
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
04 Sep 2005 11:14:45 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1e4mh1hrrd6ajkipjnotikvuo45oc2g3l9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Are you still representing this as a claim that there are no transitional
fossils? You've been shown time and again why this misrepresentation is
false to fact. Since you persist in it, I can only conclude that you do
it again and again with malice aforethought and the INTENT to deceive.
Therefore you are guilty of the sin of false witness. Here, in public,
on this echo. And therefore, in order to be forgiven, you must confess,
repent, recant and repudiate this sin in the place you are committing it.
The belief in long ages, was an idea, nothing more and
it was not based on any evidence. It was a supposition
This is a FLAT OUT LIE. Who told you this lie (or did you just make it
up from whole cloth)?
A flat out lie, he says. No watch, folks...
Yes, a FLAT OUT LIE, which is the kind of thing that latter-day young-
earth creationist heretics like yourself teach. You teach people that
lying in God's name is a godly thing to do. That, sir, is the rankest of
heresy, suborning sin in God's name.
by a man, who decided that God wasn't needed, just
time. This was before any dating methods. That
supposition was uniformitarianism, which developed in
the late 1700's. James Hutton presented this idea in
1785 and had zero evidence for it. There were no
dating methods to show any age of the Earth.
True, back then the only thing you could use was sedimentation rates
and
you had to more or less assume that they were at least close to
uniform.
You see folks, I lied when I said that it began as
an idea. A supposition. But I'm right in that there
Not a supposition, but an estimate based on sedimentation rates, LIAR!!!
were no dating methods to support it and that it
was, in this posters' own words, "assumed", which
means that it couldn't be supported and they
assumed it, which means I didn't lie about it being
an idea that they assumed to be true and tried to
support, but did not have the evidence for, instead
of their claim that it was based on the evidence of
an old Earth and fossils and the idea formed out
of that. So by his own admission, what I said is true
and yet, he calls me a liar. This is the contradiction
of the evolutionist. <chuckle>
As for the rest, you can figure it out. :)
Yes, we can SEE that you will defend your lies with still more lies until
you have suborned every potential liar-for-Jesus that you can deceive
with your lies onto your hell-bent path.
Do not even bother to reply unless it's confession and a plea to God for
absolution. Nothing else you can say will be of any effect. Your soul
is bound, according to the very text you PRETEND to follow to spend
eternity in a lake of fire. You must be looking forward to that end
because I see no shred of a sign that you repent any of your sins, but
rather that you wish it known that you will continue to sin as long as
God gives you breath. Be warned that He may not always be as patient
with you as He is today.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
04 Sep 2005 10:26:37 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C75E08D5D73doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1e4mh1hrrd6ajkipjnotikvuo45oc2g3l9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Are you still representing this as a claim that there are no transitional
fossils? You've been shown time and again why this misrepresentation is
false to fact. Since you persist in it, I can only conclude that you do
it again and again with malice aforethought and the INTENT to deceive.
Dave!! how have you been? I see that you are still trying
to spite your former teacher. I will give you the same challenge that
I have given you several times before. Name a transitional fossil and
let's look at it in light of the facts. I submit to you as always that
no transitional fossil turns out to be what it is claimed to be when
all the facts are considered.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
05 Sep 2005 11:41:16 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hneo8662lv4e5@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C75E08D5D73doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1e4mh1hrrd6ajkipjnotikvuo45oc2g3l9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Are you still representing this as a claim that there are no
transitional fossils? You've been shown time and again why this
misrepresentation is false to fact. Since you persist in it, I can
only conclude that you do it again and again with malice aforethought
and the INTENT to deceive.
Dave!! how have you been? I see that you are still trying
to spite your former teacher. I will give you the same challenge that
I have given you several times before. Name a transitional fossil and
let's look at it in light of the facts. I submit to you as always that
no transitional fossil turns out to be what it is claimed to be when
all the facts are considered.
You already told me those lies. They didn't work the first time. What
makes you think they will work now?
Please show why archaeopteryx should not be considered transitional
between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds. Also show why h. habilis
should not be considered transitional between a. afarensis and h.
erectus.
None of your cutesy rationalizations, just good, hard, anatomical reasons
based on the fossils themselves.
You can't do it. You know you can't do it. All you can do is lie about
it. Which is all young-earth creationist apologetics has EVER had going
for it: the ability to tell lies that convince the ignorant followers of
the movement.
Why should I encourage such a movement by offering it pulpit time in my
church or any kind of financial or moral support whatever? The people
who do this kind of thing for a dishonest living belong on their knees in
the confessional, not in the pulpit collecting offerings.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
05 Sep 2005 01:48:28 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C8628C0CBFFdoldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hneo8662lv4e5@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C75E08D5D73doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1e4mh1hrrd6ajkipjnotikvuo45oc2g3l9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Are you still representing this as a claim that there are no
transitional fossils? You've been shown time and again why this
misrepresentation is false to fact. Since you persist in it, I can
only conclude that you do it again and again with malice aforethought
and the INTENT to deceive.
Dave!! how have you been? I see that you are still trying
to spite your former teacher. I will give you the same challenge that
I have given you several times before. Name a transitional fossil and
let's look at it in light of the facts. I submit to you as always that
no transitional fossil turns out to be what it is claimed to be when
all the facts are considered.
You already told me those lies. They didn't work the first time. What
makes you think they will work now?
Please show why archaeopteryx should not be considered transitional
between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds.
No problem. Once the fossil was examined thouroughly
by anatomists who were not so desperate to manufacture
a transitional species it turned out that archaeopteryx was
just a bird. Designed fly and perch, and exibiting charicteristics
of other birds
In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting
of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the
International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed
on just about anything that was covered there on this creature,
but there was very broad agreement on the belief that
Archaeopteryx was a true bird.
As always the evidence for you religion of evolution
vanishes when the facts come to light.
Also show why h. habilis
should not be considered transitional between a. afarensis and h.
erectus.
No prob. As it turns out there is virtually no substantial
differince in habilis and afarensis. Similar boby size, body
shape, brain size, jaws and teeth, locomotion, atc.
Afarensis long ago was discovered to never have been anything
but an ape, nearly identical to a chimp, and since habilis is the
same item. What you have are two apes and a man with no sign
of any transition from one to another.
The only reason habilis was given a seperate identity from
afarensis was the need to manufacture a transitional series.
Another supposed transitional species vanishes before our eyes.
Got any more you fairy tale creatures you need help with?
When will you grow up and stop believing in fairy tales?
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
06 Sep 2005 08:21:58 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hp4oq2v833635@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C8628C0CBFFdoldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hneo8662lv4e5@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C75E08D5D73doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1e4mh1hrrd6ajkipjnotikvuo45oc2g3l9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Are you still representing this as a claim that there are no
transitional fossils? You've been shown time and again why this
misrepresentation is false to fact. Since you persist in it, I can
only conclude that you do it again and again with malice
aforethought
and the INTENT to deceive.
Dave!! how have you been? I see that you are still trying
to spite your former teacher. I will give you the same challenge
that
I have given you several times before. Name a transitional fossil
and
let's look at it in light of the facts. I submit to you as always
that
no transitional fossil turns out to be what it is claimed to be when
all the facts are considered.
You already told me those lies. They didn't work the first time.
What
makes you think they will work now?
Please show why archaeopteryx should not be considered transitional
between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds.
No problem. Once the fossil was examined thouroughly
by anatomists who were not so desperate to manufacture
a transitional species it turned out that archaeopteryx was
just a bird. Designed fly and perch, and exibiting charicteristics
of other birds
Characteristics like teeth, like a long, segmented, bony tail, like no
keel to anchor flight muscles? Like those?
In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting
of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the
International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed
on just about anything that was covered there on this creature,
but there was very broad agreement on the belief that
Archaeopteryx was a true bird.
That's because the defining character of aves is fully developed flight
feathers. Unfortunately for your claim, that is just about the ONLY fully
avian feature of archaeopteryx. Almost all the rest of its anatomy is
shared with any of the small coelosaurs (e.g. coesophysis).
As always the evidence for you religion of evolution
vanishes when the facts come to light.
You mean it appears to vanish when you tell your creationist pet lies.
Like I said. You tried these before. They did not work then. They do
not work now. All they prove is that you place mendacity before the
actual teachings of scripture.
Also show why h. habilis
should not be considered transitional between a. afarensis and h.
erectus.
No prob. As it turns out there is virtually no substantial
differince in habilis and afarensis. Similar boby size, body
shape, brain size, jaws and teeth, locomotion, atc.
This is simply false to fact. You simply make allegations without any
reference to real fossils. Habilis has a larger brain than afaranesis,
pound for pound and a somewhat different skull structure. Rudolfensis is
a tad bigger in the brain, but still very much intermediate. In fact,
the whole human line is getting cluttered these days with transitionals
and collaterals. But thanks for playing. You illustrate the mendacity
of creationist ideology perfectly. (See fossils ER 1813 and 1470 from
Kenya or OH 24 and OH 5 from Olduvai--all well-depicted on the net so
nobody need use YOUR imagination to see what they are like and what the
differences are from afarensis).
Afarensis long ago was discovered to never have been anything
but an ape, nearly identical to a chimp, and since habilis is the
same item. What you have are two apes and a man with no sign
of any transition from one to another.
Again, you lie, then repeat the lie. You really need to get better
material. Afarensis fossils clearly indicate that the animal walked
erect, similar to humans, rather than the knuckle walking gait familiar
with chimps and gorillas. Again, see the actual fossils.
Why in the heck do you think that lying is any kind of good Christian
witness anyway? SHAME on you!
The only reason habilis was given a seperate identity from
afarensis was the need to manufacture a transitional series.
More lies from the spokesman for the liars. But then that's all you
REALLY have going for you, right? I mean from young-earth and young-
universe, to the origin of man, to the literal, global flood, your entire
literalist theology and exegesis is shown by the PHYSICAL FACTS to be in
error. And since, like all devout hypocrite narcissists, not one of you
can ever admit ERROR, you keep on lying! But you're really only fooling
yourself. Because the end of your lying is an eternal berth in a lake of
fire, along with anyone you happen to be able to seduce into your lying
ways. Do you honestly think anyone or anything in there is going to LOVE
you?
Another supposed transitional species vanishes before our eyes.
Got any more you fairy tale creatures you need help with?
When will you grow up and stop believing in fairy tales?
When well YOU grow up and stop believing that lying about science in
God's name will save anyone. Your own path is directly aimed at an
eternal lake of fire according to scripture, yet you refuse to heed all
warnings and listen only to liars who soothe your troubled faithlessness
and your near-dead conscience to a croaking whisper.
Meanwhile, the devil laughs at you all the way to putting your soul in
his bank deposit!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
06 Sep 2005 03:16:51 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C940C13B0A2doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hp4oq2v833635@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C8628C0CBFFdoldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hneo8662lv4e5@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C75E08D5D73doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1e4mh1hrrd6ajkipjnotikvuo45oc2g3l9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Are you still representing this as a claim that there are no
transitional fossils? You've been shown time and again why this
misrepresentation is false to fact. Since you persist in it, I can
only conclude that you do it again and again with malice
aforethought
and the INTENT to deceive.
Dave!! how have you been? I see that you are still trying
to spite your former teacher. I will give you the same challenge
that
I have given you several times before. Name a transitional fossil
and
let's look at it in light of the facts. I submit to you as always
that
no transitional fossil turns out to be what it is claimed to be when
all the facts are considered.
You already told me those lies. They didn't work the first time.
What
makes you think they will work now?
Please show why archaeopteryx should not be considered transitional
between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds.
No problem. Once the fossil was examined thouroughly
by anatomists who were not so desperate to manufacture
a transitional species it turned out that archaeopteryx was
just a bird. Designed fly and perch, and exibiting charicteristics
of other birds
Characteristics like teeth, like a long, segmented, bony tail, like no
keel to anchor flight muscles? Like those?
In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting
of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the
International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed
on just about anything that was covered there on this creature,
but there was very broad agreement on the belief that
Archaeopteryx was a true bird.
That's because the defining character of aves is fully developed flight
feathers. Unfortunately for your claim, that is just about the ONLY fully
avian feature of archaeopteryx. Almost all the rest of its anatomy is
shared with any of the small coelosaurs (e.g. coesophysis).
As always the evidence for you religion of evolution
vanishes when the facts come to light.
You mean it appears to vanish when you tell your creationist pet lies.
Like I said. You tried these before. They did not work then. They do
not work now. All they prove is that you place mendacity before the
actual teachings of scripture.
Also show why h. habilis
should not be considered transitional between a. afarensis and h.
erectus.
No prob. As it turns out there is virtually no substantial
differince in habilis and afarensis. Similar boby size, body
shape, brain size, jaws and teeth, locomotion, atc.
This is simply false to fact. You simply make allegations without any
reference to real fossils. Habilis has a larger brain than afaranesis,
pound for pound and a somewhat different skull structure. Rudolfensis is
a tad bigger in the brain, but still very much intermediate. In fact,
the whole human line is getting cluttered these days with transitionals
and collaterals. But thanks for playing. You illustrate the mendacity
of creationist ideology perfectly. (See fossils ER 1813 and 1470 from
Kenya or OH 24 and OH 5 from Olduvai--all well-depicted on the net so
nobody need use YOUR imagination to see what they are like and what the
differences are from afarensis).
Afarensis long ago was discovered to never have been anything
but an ape, nearly identical to a chimp, and since habilis is the
same item. What you have are two apes and a man with no sign
of any transition from one to another.
Again, you lie, then repeat the lie. You really need to get better
material. Afarensis fossils clearly indicate that the animal walked
erect, similar to humans, rather than the knuckle walking gait familiar
with chimps and gorillas. Again, see the actual fossils.
Why in the heck do you think that lying is any kind of good Christian
witness anyway? SHAME on you!
The only reason habilis was given a seperate identity from
afarensis was the need to manufacture a transitional series.
More lies from the spokesman for the liars. But then that's all you
REALLY have going for you, right? I mean from young-earth and young-
universe, to the origin of man, to the literal, global flood, your entire
literalist theology and exegesis is shown by the PHYSICAL FACTS to be in
error. And since, like all devout hypocrite narcissists, not one of you
can ever admit ERROR, you keep on lying! But you're really only fooling
yourself. Because the end of your lying is an eternal berth in a lake of
fire, along with anyone you happen to be able to seduce into your lying
ways. Do you honestly think anyone or anything in there is going to LOVE
you?
Another supposed transitional species vanishes before our eyes.
Got any more you fairy tale creatures you need help with?
When will you grow up and stop believing in fairy tales?
When well YOU grow up and stop believing that lying about science in
God's name will save anyone. Your own path is directly aimed at an
eternal lake of fire according to scripture, yet you refuse to heed all
warnings and listen only to liars who soothe your troubled faithlessness
and your near-dead conscience to a croaking whisper.
Meanwhile, the devil laughs at you all the way to putting your soul in
his bank deposit!
--
Dave Oldridge+
As always your start blurting insults and garbage when the
evidence for your heretical religion of evolution colapses.
I feel sorry for you.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
07 Sep 2005 12:12:28 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hruaos4mjl546@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C940C13B0A2doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in
news:11hp4oq2v833635@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C8628C0CBFFdoldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in
news:11hneo8662lv4e5@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C75E08D5D73doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1e4mh1hrrd6ajkipjnotikvuo45oc2g3l9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Are you still representing this as a claim that there are no
transitional fossils? You've been shown time and again why
this misrepresentation is false to fact. Since you persist in
it, I can only conclude that you do it again and again with
malice
aforethought
and the INTENT to deceive.
Dave!! how have you been? I see that you are still trying
to spite your former teacher. I will give you the same challenge
that
I have given you several times before. Name a transitional
fossil
and
let's look at it in light of the facts. I submit to you as
always
that
no transitional fossil turns out to be what it is claimed to be
when all the facts are considered.
You already told me those lies. They didn't work the first time.
What
makes you think they will work now?
Please show why archaeopteryx should not be considered
transitional between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds.
No problem. Once the fossil was examined thouroughly
by anatomists who were not so desperate to manufacture
a transitional species it turned out that archaeopteryx was
just a bird. Designed fly and perch, and exibiting charicteristics
of other birds
Characteristics like teeth, like a long, segmented, bony tail, like
no keel to anchor flight muscles? Like those?
In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting
of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the
International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed
on just about anything that was covered there on this creature,
but there was very broad agreement on the belief that
Archaeopteryx was a true bird.
That's because the defining character of aves is fully developed
flight feathers. Unfortunately for your claim, that is just about the
ONLY fully avian feature of archaeopteryx. Almost all the rest of
its anatomy is shared with any of the small coelosaurs (e.g.
coesophysis).
As always the evidence for you religion of evolution
vanishes when the facts come to light.
You mean it appears to vanish when you tell your creationist pet
lies.
Like I said. You tried these before. They did not work then. They
do not work now. All they prove is that you place mendacity before
the actual teachings of scripture.
Also show why h. habilis
should not be considered transitional between a. afarensis and h.
erectus.
No prob. As it turns out there is virtually no substantial
differince in habilis and afarensis. Similar boby size, body
shape, brain size, jaws and teeth, locomotion, atc.
This is simply false to fact. You simply make allegations without
any reference to real fossils. Habilis has a larger brain than
afaranesis, pound for pound and a somewhat different skull structure.
Rudolfensis is a tad bigger in the brain, but still very much
intermediate. In fact, the whole human line is getting cluttered
these days with transitionals and collaterals. But thanks for
playing. You illustrate the mendacity of creationist ideology
perfectly. (See fossils ER 1813 and 1470 from Kenya or OH 24 and OH
5 from Olduvai--all well-depicted on the net so nobody need use YOUR
imagination to see what they are like and what the differences are
from afarensis).
Afarensis long ago was discovered to never have been anything
but an ape, nearly identical to a chimp, and since habilis is the
same item. What you have are two apes and a man with no sign
of any transition from one to another.
Again, you lie, then repeat the lie. You really need to get better
material. Afarensis fossils clearly indicate that the animal walked
erect, similar to humans, rather than the knuckle walking gait
familiar with chimps and gorillas. Again, see the actual fossils.
Why in the heck do you think that lying is any kind of good Christian
witness anyway? SHAME on you!
The only reason habilis was given a seperate identity from
afarensis was the need to manufacture a transitional series.
More lies from the spokesman for the liars. But then that's all you
REALLY have going for you, right? I mean from young-earth and young-
universe, to the origin of man, to the literal, global flood, your
entire literalist theology and exegesis is shown by the PHYSICAL
FACTS to be in error. And since, like all devout hypocrite
narcissists, not one of you can ever admit ERROR, you keep on lying!
But you're really only fooling yourself. Because the end of your
lying is an eternal berth in a lake of fire, along with anyone you
happen to be able to seduce into your lying ways. Do you honestly
think anyone or anything in there is going to LOVE you?
Another supposed transitional species vanishes before our eyes.
Got any more you fairy tale creatures you need help with?
When will you grow up and stop believing in fairy tales?
When well YOU grow up and stop believing that lying about science in
God's name will save anyone. Your own path is directly aimed at an
eternal lake of fire according to scripture, yet you refuse to heed
all warnings and listen only to liars who soothe your troubled
faithlessness and your near-dead conscience to a croaking whisper.
Meanwhile, the devil laughs at you all the way to putting your soul
in his bank deposit!
--
Dave Oldridge+
As always your start blurting insults and garbage when the
evidence for your heretical religion of evolution colapses.
I feel sorry for you.
I couldn't insult you if I tried. What I'm telling you is simply the
bald truth about the pathetic state of your soul. Look, it's your soul,
you can give it to the devil for a pat on the back from some heretic you
like or you can get with the program and actually repent your sins.
*I* don't really care who you lie about feeling sorry for. You SHOULD
feel sorry for your own sins. And DO something about it!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
07 Sep 2005 07:32:54 AM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C9E1E63702doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hruaos4mjl546@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C940C13B0A2doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in
news:11hp4oq2v833635@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C8628C0CBFFdoldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in
news:11hneo8662lv4e5@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C75E08D5D73doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:1e4mh1hrrd6ajkipjnotikvuo45oc2g3l9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:56:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:
Now watch this folks. I want you to take notice
of what they actually say and they can't even
see it.
proved by the ideas of Goldschmidt (Hopeful Monsters)
and Gould, who took Goldschmidt's ridiculous and
rejected idea and toned it down a bit and called it
Punctuated Equilibrium. Both men knew that the fossil
record showed that slow and gradual change did NOT
happen and yet, still rejected the Biblical account.
The fossil record does NOT show that slow and gradual
change does not occur.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Are you still representing this as a claim that there are no
transitional fossils? You've been shown time and again why
this misrepresentation is false to fact. Since you persist in
it, I can only conclude that you do it again and again with
malice
aforethought
and the INTENT to deceive.
Dave!! how have you been? I see that you are still trying
to spite your former teacher. I will give you the same challenge
that
I have given you several times before. Name a transitional
fossil
and
let's look at it in light of the facts. I submit to you as
always
that
no transitional fossil turns out to be what it is claimed to be
when all the facts are considered.
You already told me those lies. They didn't work the first time.
What
makes you think they will work now?
Please show why archaeopteryx should not be considered
transitional between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds.
No problem. Once the fossil was examined thouroughly
by anatomists who were not so desperate to manufacture
a transitional species it turned out that archaeopteryx was
just a bird. Designed fly and perch, and exibiting charicteristics
of other birds
Characteristics like teeth, like a long, segmented, bony tail, like
no keel to anchor flight muscles? Like those?
In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting
of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the
International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed
on just about anything that was covered there on this creature,
but there was very broad agreement on the belief that
Archaeopteryx was a true bird.
That's because the defining character of aves is fully developed
flight feathers. Unfortunately for your claim, that is just about the
ONLY fully avian feature of archaeopteryx. Almost all the rest of
its anatomy is shared with any of the small coelosaurs (e.g.
coesophysis).
As always the evidence for you religion of evolution
vanishes when the facts come to light.
You mean it appears to vanish when you tell your creationist pet
lies.
Like I said. You tried these before. They did not work then. They
do not work now. All they prove is that you place mendacity before
the actual teachings of scripture.
Also show why h. habilis
should not be considered transitional between a. afarensis and h.
erectus.
No prob. As it turns out there is virtually no substantial
differince in habilis and afarensis. Similar boby size, body
shape, brain size, jaws and teeth, locomotion, atc.
This is simply false to fact. You simply make allegations without
any reference to real fossils. Habilis has a larger brain than
afaranesis, pound for pound and a somewhat different skull structure.
Rudolfensis is a tad bigger in the brain, but still very much
intermediate. In fact, the whole human line is getting cluttered
these days with transitionals and collaterals. But thanks for
playing. You illustrate the mendacity of creationist ideology
perfectly. (See fossils ER 1813 and 1470 from Kenya or OH 24 and OH
5 from Olduvai--all well-depicted on the net so nobody need use YOUR
imagination to see what they are like and what the differences are
from afarensis).
Afarensis long ago was discovered to never have been anything
but an ape, nearly identical to a chimp, and since habilis is the
same item. What you have are two apes and a man with no sign
of any transition from one to another.
Again, you lie, then repeat the lie. You really need to get better
material. Afarensis fossils clearly indicate that the animal walked
erect, similar to humans, rather than the knuckle walking gait
familiar with chimps and gorillas. Again, see the actual fossils.
Why in the heck do you think that lying is any kind of good Christian
witness anyway? SHAME on you!
The only reason habilis was given a seperate identity from
afarensis was the need to manufacture a transitional series.
More lies from the spokesman for the liars. But then that's all you
REALLY have going for you, right? I mean from young-earth and young-
universe, to the origin of man, to the literal, global flood, your
entire literalist theology and exegesis is shown by the PHYSICAL
FACTS to be in error. And since, like all devout hypocrite
narcissists, not one of you can ever admit ERROR, you keep on lying!
But you're really only fooling yourself. Because the end of your
lying is an eternal berth in a lake of fire, along with anyone you
happen to be able to seduce into your lying ways. Do you honestly
think anyone or anything in there is going to LOVE you?
Another supposed transitional species vanishes before our eyes.
Got any more you fairy tale creatures you need help with?
When will you grow up and stop believing in fairy tales?
When well YOU grow up and stop believing that lying about science in
God's name will save anyone. Your own path is directly aimed at an
eternal lake of fire according to scripture, yet you refuse to heed
all warnings and listen only to liars who soothe your troubled
faithlessness and your near-dead conscience to a croaking whisper.
Meanwhile, the devil laughs at you all the way to putting your soul
in his bank deposit!
--
Dave Oldridge+
As always your start blurting insults and garbage when the
evidence for your heretical religion of evolution colapses.
I feel sorry for you.
I couldn't insult you if I tried. What I'm telling you is simply the
bald truth about the pathetic state of your soul. Look, it's your soul,
you can give it to the devil for a pat on the back from some heretic you
like or you can get with the program and actually repent your sins.
*I* don't really care who you lie about feeling sorry for. You SHOULD
feel sorry for your own sins. And DO something about it!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
You have made your choice.
Your blood is on your own hands.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
07 Sep 2005 12:48:53 PM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11htngs3oq6m77@corp.supernews.com:
As always your start blurting insults and garbage when the
evidence for your heretical religion of evolution colapses.
I feel sorry for you.
I couldn't insult you if I tried. What I'm telling you is simply the
bald truth about the pathetic state of your soul. Look, it's your
soul,
you can give it to the devil for a pat on the back from some heretic
you
like or you can get with the program and actually repent your sins.
*I* don't really care who you lie about feeling sorry for. You SHOULD
feel sorry for your own sins. And DO something about it!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
You have made your choice.
Your blood is on your own hands.
No, actually, it will much more likely come at the hands of some nutjob
of your persuasion--someone unable to face reality and very threatened by
it.
You see it's fundamentalists like you who cannot stand the idea that you
might be wrong about anything and who tend to sacrifice strangers to your
false gods. Latter-day Ammonites! Of course Og and his compatriots
don't have the balls to actually go into their NEIGHBOURS homes and steal
THEIR children for their rituals, so they broaden their scope and incite
whole governments to perform holocausts in the name of their devils!
Have fun in that lake of fire, Og. The only way to avoid that is to STOP
LYING, but apparently you hate truth too much to be freed by it.
As for blood, be very afraid. If you actually try your human sacrifice
rituals around me, you may find that the spiritual company *I* keep is
far, far more powerful than your latter-day version of old Moloch!
Just don't say you weren't warned.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
07 Sep 2005 03:05:39 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96CA6E00D8365doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11htngs3oq6m77@corp.supernews.com:
As always your start blurting insults and garbage when the
evidence for your heretical religion of evolution colapses.
I feel sorry for you.
I couldn't insult you if I tried. What I'm telling you is simply the
bald truth about the pathetic state of your soul. Look, it's your
soul,
you can give it to the devil for a pat on the back from some heretic
you
like or you can get with the program and actually repent your sins.
*I* don't really care who you lie about feeling sorry for. You SHOULD
feel sorry for your own sins. And DO something about it!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
You have made your choice.
Your blood is on your own hands.
No, actually, it will much more likely come at the hands of some nutjob
of your persuasion--someone unable to face reality and very threatened by
it.
You see it's fundamentalists like you who cannot stand the idea that you
might be wrong about anything and who tend to sacrifice strangers to your
false gods. Latter-day Ammonites! Of course Og and his compatriots
don't have the balls to actually go into their NEIGHBOURS homes and steal
THEIR children for their rituals, so they broaden their scope and incite
whole governments to perform holocausts in the name of their devils!
Have fun in that lake of fire, Og. The only way to avoid that is to STOP
LYING, but apparently you hate truth too much to be freed by it.
As for blood, be very afraid. If you actually try your human sacrifice
rituals around me, you may find that the spiritual company *I* keep is
far, far more powerful than your latter-day version of old Moloch!
Just don't say you weren't warned.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Sacrifice?
Let's see who is it that tries to continuosly sacrifice Jesus
by turning Him into a cracker. Oh wait,,, it's you. hypocrite.
Eze 3:18 When I tell the wicked, You shall surely die; and you give him no
warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life;
the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require
at your hand.
Eze 3:19 Yet if you warn the wicked, and he doesn't turn from his
wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you
have delivered your soul.
Don't say YOU weren't warned blasphemer.
My responsibility toward you is fullfilled.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
08 Sep 2005 02:41:28 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hui1lcm6ouab7@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96CA6E00D8365doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11htngs3oq6m77@corp.supernews.com:
As always your start blurting insults and garbage when the
evidence for your heretical religion of evolution colapses.
I feel sorry for you.
I couldn't insult you if I tried. What I'm telling you is simply
the bald truth about the pathetic state of your soul. Look, it's
your
soul,
you can give it to the devil for a pat on the back from some
heretic
you
like or you can get with the program and actually repent your
sins.
*I* don't really care who you lie about feeling sorry for. You
SHOULD feel sorry for your own sins. And DO something about it!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
You have made your choice.
Your blood is on your own hands.
No, actually, it will much more likely come at the hands of some
nutjob of your persuasion--someone unable to face reality and very
threatened by it.
You see it's fundamentalists like you who cannot stand the idea that
you might be wrong about anything and who tend to sacrifice strangers
to your false gods. Latter-day Ammonites! Of course Og and his
compatriots don't have the balls to actually go into their NEIGHBOURS
homes and steal THEIR children for their rituals, so they broaden
their scope and incite whole governments to perform holocausts in the
name of their devils!
Have fun in that lake of fire, Og. The only way to avoid that is to
STOP LYING, but apparently you hate truth too much to be freed by it.
As for blood, be very afraid. If you actually try your human
sacrifice rituals around me, you may find that the spiritual company
*I* keep is far, far more powerful than your latter-day version of
old Moloch!
Just don't say you weren't warned.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Sacrifice?
Let's see who is it that tries to continuosly sacrifice Jesus
by turning Him into a cracker. Oh wait,,, it's you. hypocrite.
LIE.
Eze 3:18 When I tell the wicked, You shall surely die; and you give
him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to
save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his
blood will I require at your hand.
Eze 3:19 Yet if you warn the wicked, and he doesn't turn from his
wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but
you have delivered your soul.
Don't say YOU weren't warned blasphemer.
My responsibility toward you is fullfilled.
You had no responsibility toward me in the first place. And you won't
have until you repent your sins.
Don't prance about in here in front of me with your sanctimonious
hypocrite ways. I see right through them. You're an even bigger fool
than you say I am if you think for one nanosecond that you're fooling God
with any of this posing.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
08 Sep 2005 03:20:58 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96CB70517126doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11hui1lcm6ouab7@corp.supernews.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96CA6E00D8365doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11htngs3oq6m77@corp.supernews.com:
As always your start blurting insults and garbage when the
evidence for your heretical religion of evolution colapses.
I feel sorry for you.
I couldn't insult you if I tried. What I'm telling you is simply
the bald truth about the pathetic state of your soul. Look, it's
your
soul,
you can give it to the devil for a pat on the back from some
heretic
you
like or you can get with the program and actually repent your
sins.
*I* don't really care who you lie about feeling sorry for. You
SHOULD feel sorry for your own sins. And DO something about it!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
You have made your choice.
Your blood is on your own hands.
No, actually, it will much more likely come at the hands of some
nutjob of your persuasion--someone unable to face reality and very
threatened by it.
You see it's fundamentalists like you who cannot stand the idea that
you might be wrong about anything and who tend to sacrifice strangers
to your false gods. Latter-day Ammonites! Of course Og and his
compatriots don't have the balls to actually go into their NEIGHBOURS
homes and steal THEIR children for their rituals, so they broaden
their scope and incite whole governments to perform holocausts in the
name of their devils!
Have fun in that lake of fire, Og. The only way to avoid that is to
STOP LYING, but apparently you hate truth too much to be freed by it.
As for blood, be very afraid. If you actually try your human
sacrifice rituals around me, you may find that the spiritual company
*I* keep is far, far more powerful than your latter-day version of
old Moloch!
Just don't say you weren't warned.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Sacrifice?
Let's see who is it that tries to continuosly sacrifice Jesus
by turning Him into a cracker. Oh wait,,, it's you. hypocrite.
LIE.
Eze 3:18 When I tell the wicked, You shall surely die; and you give
him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to
save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his
blood will I require at your hand.
Eze 3:19 Yet if you warn the wicked, and he doesn't turn from his
wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but
you have delivered your soul.
Don't say YOU weren't warned blasphemer.
My responsibility toward you is fullfilled.
You had no responsibility toward me in the first place.
The word of God proves you wrong.
And you won't
have until you repent your sins.
As if a blasphemer such as you had any
clue about true repentamce.
If you ever become a christian you will understand.
Don't prance about in here in front of me with your sanctimonious
hypocrite ways. I see right through them.
You're an even bigger fool
than you say I am if you think for one nanosecond that you're fooling God
with any of this posing.
Is one of the gay little speeches that you learned
to use in priest school when someone refuses to
accept you as a substitute for Christ.
As always you take your own charicteristics and
try to attribute them to someone else.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTIONISTS LOVE TO BLAME US |
08 Sep 2005 05:54:53 PM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:11i17agra9avt06@corp.s | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
