National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin

Religions > Bible > National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Gactimus"
Date:	02 Dec 2004 08:04:32 AM
Object:	National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin

National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin
by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG-USA
6 November 2004
The 33-page cover story of the November issue of National Geographic asks
the question, "Was Darwin wrong?" After decades of evolutionary propaganda,
the magazine surprised no one with their confident answer, "No!" But
scientifically informed and careful thinking readers will not be persuaded
by the "overwhelming evidence" (p. 4) presented.
Obviously, National Geographic (hereafter simply NG) thinks that a
significant percentage of their readers are slipping in their faith in
evolution and need a remedial course in the some of the "abundant, various,
ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available" evidence (p.
8). NG admits that nearly half of Americans don't believe in evolution, due
in part to "Scriptural literalism" [really, it's simply believing God's
plain word] and the "proselytizing" [NG isn't proselytizing, of course?]
work of young-earth creationist and intelligent design proponents (p. 6).
They also blame it on "honest confusion and ignorance"; but given that the
popular science magazines, the mass media and the educational establishment
are controlled by evolutionists, evolutionists have no one to blame but
themselves for this alleged confusion and ignorance.
They are also hoping that their readers have a short memory. Only about five
years ago, NG promoted "Archaeoraptor" as "proof' that "We can now say that
birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals."1
However, this turned out to be a hoax-a Piltdown Bird-see
Archaeoraptor-Phony "feathered" fossil. They had to publish an embarrassing
recantation, but now they are back to their old indoctrinating tricks.
The article starts with some of the usual patronizing nonsense refuting the
"evolution is just a theory" claim. But this is a straw man, as we have long
advised creationists from saying this very thing-see this section of our
"don't use" page. This section also refutes the very fallacy that NG tries
to foist upon its readers: that we should not dignify evolution with a word
like "theory," and put the goo-to-you conjecture on the same level as the
theory of relativity and theories of electricity. Rather, these theories
that NG confidently compares with evolution are based on repeatable
observations in the present, while evolution is a claim about the unobserved
past. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science.
The article says that "two big ideas are at issue here: the historical
phenomenon of the evolution of all species (descended from a common
ancestor) and natural selection as 'the main mechanism causing that
phenomenon'" (p. 8).
The fundamental points of debate: Information
To understand the following brief analysis of this article, it will be
important to remember some important facts about life and the creationist
view. All living things contain in their cells the DNA molecule that carries
the information (genetic instructions) for making all aspects of that
creature and all this information is in the first fertilized cell of each
kind of creature. Amoeba DNA has no information for making hooves, hair,
tails and eyes, but horse DNA does. Alligator DNA has no genetic information
for producing feathers, hollow bones and one-way lung systems, but eagles do
(as did Archaeopteryx). Some DNA information is common to many different
kinds of creatures, but there are also differences.
So the key questions related to evolution are these. One, how did this
information come into existence in the evolutionist's supposed first living
microscopic creature? And, second, how did the information in that "simple"
creature get changed and augmented to produce all the different kinds of
plants and animals that we see living and in the fossil record?
The NG article doesn't even attempt to address the first question, with good
reason. As the world famous astrobiologist, Paul Davies, says:
It's a shame that there are precious few hard facts when it comes to the
origin of life. We have a rough idea when it began on Earth, and some
interesting theories about where, but the how part has everybody stumped.
Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organised
themselves into the first living cell.2
This is not surprising, given the problems with chemical evolution to
explain life's origin, and the key role of genetic information in the making
of living creatures. Dr Werner Gitt is a leading German scientist and
young-earth creationist who is an expert on information theory. In his
powerful, tightly reasoned book, In the Beginning was Information, he
argues, "There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known
sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in
matter."3
So the evolution theory is in big trouble right from the beginning. But it
gets worse, because, as creationists have repeatedly argued, and as we
review below, natural selection and mutations (either alone or together) do
not produce the increase of new genetic information needed to support the
goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory of evolution.
Creationists believe, based on the clear teaching of Genesis, that God
supernaturally made different "kinds" of plants and animals during the first
six literal days of history and that He endowed those creatures with the
genetic information to produce enormous varieties within the original kinds
but not the ability to change into a different kind. Creation scientists
(with PhDs earned at secular, evolution-dominated universities) are involved
in ongoing scientific research to try to define the genetic boundaries of
the original kinds, but most seem to agree that, generally speaking, the
Genesis kinds are in most cases at the genus or family level, not the
species level of modern taxonomic classification. See What is the Biblical
creationist model? and Variation, information and the created kind.
So the contrast between evolution and creation is clear. Evolutionists
believe in the tree of life-that all living things are descended from one
common ancestor. That is, they believe in vertical change from one kind of
creature to another. Creationists believe in the forest of life-horizontal
variation within the original created kind, but not one kind changing into
another. Which view really fits the scientific evidence?
Concerning natural selection, NG gets it wrong at the start when it says
that "Wallace and Darwin share the kudos for having discovered natural
selection" (p. 8). Actually, a respected creationist British scientist,
Edward Blyth, discussed the concept (without using the term) 25 years before
Darwin published his famous book. Blyth attributed variation within the
original created kinds to changes in environment or food supply.4 NG
describes natural selection as the "natural culling" of "useless or negative
variations" (p. 8), but this reveals the fatal flaw in Darwin's theory. As
creationists have continually pointed out, natural selection doesn't create
anything new, it only selects from the existing genetic information from
which the varieties are produced. The result is either the preservation of
some of that information in a variety well suited to a particular
environment or the complete loss of some of the information through
extinction of a variety. But what never results is the increase or creation
of new genetic information.
NG misleads its readers and evades this information argument when it
showcases losses of information as "proof" of goo-to-you evolution, which
would involve massive increases of information. For example, NG asks, "Why
do certain species of flightless beetles have wings that never open?" (pp.
12-13). We have long ago pointed out that such beetles did arise from
beetles with fully functional wings because of a mutation that crippled the
power of flight. But in some environments, such a mutation may be
beneficial, i.e. benefiting the organism. For example, on a windy island, a
beetle that flew into the air may be blown into the sea, while flightless
ones will avoid that peril. But the bottom line is the beetle has lost
something; this doesn't explain how beetles or flight could have arisen in
the first place. See Beetle bloopers: Even a defect can be an advantage
sometimes, even though it results from a loss of genetic information.
The evidence for evolution is presented by NG in four categories:
biogeography (the study of the geographical distribution of living
creatures), paleontology (the study of fossils), embryology (the study of
the development of embryos to birth) and morphology (the study of the shape
and design of creatures). Darwin used all these arguments, and so do modern
evolutionists.
Biogeography
Evolutionists say that only evolution can explain why there are certain
creatures in one location, say kangaroos in Australia, but not in another
location. However, Darwin claimed that evolution explained the pattern of
life on fixed continents, while now evolution is supposed to explain the
pattern of life on continents that moved apart from one big one. If
evolution is so flexible that it can explain such mutually incompatible
distributions, then it explains nothing at all.
Also, there are many puzzles to the observed distribution of living and
fossil creatures. For example, kangaroos are not mainly in Australia
"because they evolved there." And evolutionists have to admit that
marsupials once lived in Europe, Asia and North America (in profusion in the
latter), but now are largely absent (except for opossums in the Americas).
Here is a revealing admission from two evolutionists:
Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America (which
were part of the supercontinent Gondwana); North American opossums are
recent immigrants to the continent. In contrast, metatherian fossils from
the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America (which
formed the supercontinent Laurasia). This geographical switch remains
unexplained.5
But creationists contend that there are much better explanations of the
biogeographic evidence, which flow from understanding the changes in climate
and sea level after the global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah and
the fact that post-Flood people would have intentionally (and sometimes
unknowingly) taken plants and animals to different parts of the world as
they repopulated the earth. See Migration Q&A and chapter 1 of Woodmorrappe's
book, Studies in Flood Geology.
Closely related species in an area, such as the thirteen species of finches
in the Gal�pagos Islands that Darwin explored, have indeed arisen from a
common ancestor. But finches changing into finches don't tell us where
finches came from in the first place. Rather, they are a classic example of
sorting out genetic information, not generating new information, and far
more quickly than evolutionists expected but just what the creation model
predicted-see Darwin's finches: Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood
adaptation. Also, recent work shows that many of the changes are really the
result of a built-in capacity to respond to cyclically changing climates.
For example, while a drought resulted in a slight increase in beak size, the
change was reversed when the rains returned.
This argument applies to the other NG examples of anoles, mole rats, ants,
pigeons and fruit flies. It's also important to note that Darwin's argument
was against a compromising view similar to that of progressive creationists
such as Hugh Ross: namely, that God created individual species where they
are now living.
Contrary to what the NG article implies, informed creationists do indeed
believe that new species can arise. But these are the result of the
reshuffling or loss of the genetic information in the original created
kinds. As explained earlier, creationist scientists do not believe that the
original created "kinds" (mentioned in Genesis 1) are equivalent to the
modern man-made taxonomic classification of "species," but more likely
approximates the "family" level. Much recent evidence has accumulated to
show that speciation can happen rapidly, which has surprised evolutionists
but fits perfectly with the Bible's teachings-see Speedy species surprise.
Paleontology
NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported
his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that
the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common
ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless
numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50%
reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms
between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our
ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with
fossils and the missing links are still missing.
As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7
In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland,
Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History in London, concurred:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of
evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I
would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be
used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the
information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave
it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that
I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of
organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such
fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8
Richard Dawkins' evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is
emphatic:
However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the
evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin
of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between
evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same
argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether
gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of
the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the
original]
So I guess the folks at NG are not real evolutionists, or at least not very
informed. They certainly offer nothing in this article to negate these
statements. Incredibly, NG even admits that "illuminating but spotty, the
fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of every 1000
frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor" (p. 25). So there you have
it. Evolution is 99.9% imagination! NG quickly reassures us that "dozens of
intermediate forms" have been found, but they only give two examples: horses
and whales.
Creationists have exposed the flaws in the supposed horse evolution story
for years. The story told by the fossils in South America is backwards
compared to the story told by the fossils in North America-see What's
happened to the horse? Rather, the horse "tree" is really a bush, and
comprises merely variants within the horse kind, and most likely a non-horse
at the bottom-see The non-evolution of the horse: Special creation or
evolved rock badger? and pages 189-97 in Evolution: The Fossils Still Say
No! A previous flawed attempt by NG (in 1981) to use horse fossils to
support evolution is exposed in Horse find defies evolution.
As for whale evolution, NG refers to the work of paleontologist Philip
Gingerich. It discusses his research on Pakicetus ("whale from Pakistan"),
but doesn't reveal the real story. In 1994 Gingerich claimed Pakicetus was a
creature "perfectly intermediate" between a land animal and a whale.10 The
fossil evidence at the time only consisted of parts of the skull, yet
Gingerich's artist drew the creature swimming in the ocean with front legs
like a land animal but the mouth and a rear end looking like a sea creature
as it was trying to eat fish. But by 2001 more fossils had been found11 and
it was concluded that Pakicetus was "no more amphibious than a tapir."13 Yet
NG misleadingly tells us that Gingerich "discovered Pakicetus, a terrestrial
mammal" (p. 31). That's not what he called it when he discovered it and
wrote about it in the scientific literature!
NG goes on to say that Gingerich now believes that whales are related to
antelope based on a "single piece of fossil" found in 2000. It was part of
the anklebone of a "new species of whale," they said. But later they found
the other part and realized that it was "an anklebone, from a four-legged
whale." Hold on! When was the last time you saw a "four-legged whale"?
Evolutionists are playing language games to call the fins and tail of a
whale "legs." But if, as NG says, the fossil "closely resembled" the
anklebone in artiodactyls (hoofed land animals, such as antelopes), then how
on earth could this "single piece of fossil evidence" be interpreted as
being in any way related to whales? In evolution theory, imagination is
king! NG says at this point "this is how science is supposed to work" (p.
31). Really?
For more refutation of the supposed fossil evidence for evolution, readers
should consult Darwin's Enigma, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! and
chapter 5 of Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics.
Embryology and Morphology
Similarity of shape or design can just as well, if not more so, point to a
common designer, rather than a common ancestor. Roller skates, bikes, cars,
trucks, busses and trains all have wheels, but one is not the ancestor of
the other. They are similar because intelligent human designers have all
thought that wheels are a good way to move things on land. So too living
creatures that share the same planet and are interdependently linked in a
complex ecosystem will have many similarities and those which live in very
similar environments on earth (e.g., in water or air or on land) will share
even more similarities. Our infinitely wise Creator is smarter than all the
engineers put together. Good designs can be, and are, easily modified for
different applications.
But when we take into account the differences in creatures that share common
features, the common ancestor argument becomes even more unbelievable. For
example, humans and frogs have five digits on their hands, but the
developmental patterns in them are vastly different. In humans the fingers
develop by programmed cell death in between the digits, whereas in frogs it
is by outward growth as cells divide. See more detailed discussion of this
in the sixth chapter of Refuting Evolution 2.
As for embryos, the development is programmed by the information in the DNA
molecule in the fertilized egg. So again the question is where did this
information come from for the different kinds of plants and animals? It didn't
come from time and chance and the laws of nature. And we must never lose
sight of the evolutionists continued use of Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent
drawings-see Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit
and Fraud rediscovered. Yet, like Darwin and many science textbooks15 and
evolutionist books for laymen,16 NG endorses embryonic recapitulation (p.
13).
NG claims vestigial characteristics or organs as proof of evolution. These
are aspects of the body that are claimed to be useless leftovers from our
animal ancestry. There are two problems with this argument. One, the loss of
function (through the loss of genetic information) cannot be evidence of the
ascendance from a lowly kind of creature up to a higher form (which would
require an increase of information). Secondly, nearly all of the 180
"vestigial organs" in man cited by evolutionists as proof of evolution at
the turn of the 20th century are now known (because of medical research) to
have at least one function. See Chapter 7 of Refuting Evolution 2 and
Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional. In fact, NG ludicrously uses male
nipples as proof of evolution (pp. 12-13)-do they think males evolved from a
race entirely comprised of breasted-female humans? For an answer, see Male
nipples prove evolution? (reply to a skeptic).
NG makes a big deal about plants, animals, bacteria and viruses changing to
resist herbicides, insecticides and antibiotics. In fact, the article says
that "there's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian
theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs"
(p. 21).
But in each cited example we have a certain kind of creature changing into
another variety of that same kind of creature. One flu strain changing into
another flu strain, or one staph bacterium changing into a different staph
bacterium, or one variety of house fly turning into another variety of house
fly is not an explanation of where the information to make the flu, staph or
house fly came from in the first place. And we always find that the change
is actually going in the opposite direction to what evolution requires-see
The evolution train's a-comin' (Sorry, a-goin'-in the wrong direction).
But how does this variation occur? Prominent evolutionist, Francisco Ayala
tell us:
Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the
Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one
or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and
other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most
diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the
populations exposed to these man-made compounds.17
Research shows that the same can apply to antibiotic resistance.
Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members
of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic
nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost
certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga
Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to
antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both
of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among
those used.18
But many times the changes are due to mutations, which are copying mistakes
in the DNA molecule in the process of reproduction. What NG doesn't tell the
readers is that mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the
creature. Most mutations are deleterious, if not fatal, to the organism. It
is not on the way up (evolving), but on the way down (devolving). Sometimes,
the mutation does improve the chance of survival, but it always involves a
loss of genetic information.
For example, the bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, is troublesome to humans,
but doctors can destroy it with an antibiotic. After the patient takes the
antibiotic, it is absorbed through the cell wall of the bacterium. It has
the genetic information to make an enzyme which reacts with the antibiotic
converting it into a poison, killing the bacterium. But due to a mutation,
some H. pylori cannot make the enzyme and so cannot convert the antibiotic
and so do not die but reproduce, giving the patient and doctor a new
problem. The mutant survived through a loss of information, which is not a
process that will eventually lead to an increase of information to change a
bacterium over millions of years into a biologist.
As Dr. Lee Spetner, a Jewish scientist and expert on mutations, has stated
in his excellent book, Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of
Evolution, pp. 159-60:
But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a
protein less specific. They add no information and they add no new molecular
capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them
can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of
macroevolution. ... Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations
that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every
sale but thought he could make it up on volume.
So much for mutations being any help to the evolutionist. Just like natural
selection, they don't produce the new genetic information that the theory
requires. But like natural selection, mutations fit perfectly with what the
Bible teaches. They are the result of the curse of God on creation when Adam
and Eve sinned (Genesis 3:20, Romans 8:20-22).
NG is simply "hurling elephants" at their readers when it says that
additional evidence for evolution comes from "population genetics,
biochemistry, molecular biology, and ... genomics" (p. 20). Readers will see
the insurmountable problems for evolution from biochemistry in Michael Behe's
(Ph.D. university biochemist) Darwin's Black Box. For an agnostic,
university molecular biologist's strictly scientific evaluation of
evolution, see Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (particularly
chapter 10).
Darwinism and religion
NG wraps things up by asserting that "no one needs to, and no one should,
accept evolution merely as a matter of faith" (p. 8). But that is precisely
what most of the world, including most scientists (who are just laymen
outside their own field of expertise), have done. Evolution is believed
because it appears to be scientific due to "smoke and mirrors" arguments and
because it gives people an excuse for not submitting to their Creator. As
Romans 1:18-20 says, people suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
But what is Darwin's theory's relationship to religion? Certainly, a person
can believe in a vaguely defined "religion" and in evolution at the same
time (see Is evolution "anti-religion"? It depends). NG claims the
compatibility of evolution with papal pronouncements and Roman Catholic
dogma (p. 6). However, as far as the likes of NG are concerned, when the
Pope says you can believe in evolution, he's an enlightened religious leader
who should be heeded. But when he speaks on the sanctity of human life from
conception and marriage, and thus opposes abortion and homosexual behavior,
then he's just an old bigot who should keep his religion to himself.
But even the NG's premise can be debated. There are Roman Catholics who don't
believe evolution or millions of years is compatible with their faith (or
true science). For example, most of the scientists in the video Evolution
.... Fact or Belief? and in the geology video Experiments in Stratification
are Catholic. But the real issue is whether the theory of millions of years
of evolution is compatible with the Creator's Word, the Bible. For two
centuries, young-earth creationists have shown clearly that it is not. See
The Great Turning Point, Refuting Compromise, Creation and Change, and these
articles: Two histories of death, Two world-views in conflict and The god of
an old earth.
Conclusion
NG is wrong that scientific evidence proves goo-to-you-via-the-zoo
evolution. The evidence has never supported Darwin's theory, which is why an
increasing number of Ph.D. scientists and well-informed laymen and students
are rejecting what they have been taught (brainwashed) in schools, museums,
TV science programs and in National Geographic all their lives.
Darwin was partially right about natural selection explaining the origin of
species. But because he didn't pay attention to the Bible (but rather
rejected it because of his rebellion against his Creator), he didn't
understand that speciation is simply the God-designed way for the original
supernaturally created kinds to produce wonderful variety and perpetuate
themselves in the changing environments of a sin-cursed world that would be
radically changed by a global year-long Flood at the time of Noah.
The Bible fits the facts, which explains why an increasing number of Ph.D.
scientists are creationists-see In Six Days, On the Seventh Day, The Genesis
Files and our website section Creation scientists and other biographies of
interest. Evolution doesn't agree with the scientific evidence. It cannot
stand careful scrutiny, which is why evolutionists have to use political and
academic power and legal intimidation to keep criticisms of evolution out of
public schools. In fact, the atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott
tacitly admitted that if students were presented such criticisms, they might
end up not believing it!
In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for
critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually
guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject
one of the major themes in science.19
It is sad to see that Philip Gingerich is an evolutionist, and not a
Bible-believing Christian, today because his church didn't teach him
correctly. He said, "I grew up in a conservative church in the Midwest and
was not taught anything about evolution. The subject was clearly skirted."
(p. 31)
Churches that don't equip their youth and adults to deal with the myth of
evolution are likely to see them deceived by articles like this one in NG
and many of them will drift away from the truth of God's Word.
Why should Christians continue to subscribe to a magazine like National
Geographic that persistently writes deceptively untruthful articles to push
an anti-god agenda? Instead, subscribe to Creation magazine-56 pages of full
color, understandable, truthful articles, coming four times per year, and
with no paid advertising. A gift subscription for a Christian or an
unbeliever would make a great Christmas present.
References and notes
1.. Sloan, C.P., Feathers for T. Rex?, National Geographic 196(5):98-107,
November 1999. Return to text.
2.. Paul Davies (Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie Univ.),
Born Lucky, New Scientist, Vol. 179(2403):32, 12 July 2003. Return to text.
3.. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, p. 107, CLV, Bielefeld,
Germany, 1997. Return to text.
4.. Edward Blyth, An attempt to classify the "varieties" of animals with
observations on the marked seasonal and other changes which naturally take
place in various British species and which do not constitute varieties,
Magazine of Natural History, VIII:40-53, 1835. See also my book, The Great
Turning Point (pp. 92-93 and 187-189) for the similar reasoning of two of
the "scriptural geologists," George Bugg (a pastor) and William Rhind (a
scientist), writing just before and after Blyth in 1826 and 1838
respectively. Evolutionists are discovering this also. See Environment
contributes to evolution, too, 29 Oct. 2004. Return to text.
5.. Cifelli, R.L. and Davis, B.M., Marsupial origins, Science 302:1899-2,
2003. Return to text.
6.. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 206, 292 and 307, Penguin
Books, London, 1982; reprint of 1859 edition. Return to text.
7.. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History, 86(5):14,
May 1977. Return to text.
8.. Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, p. 89, Master Books, Santee,
CA, 1988. Return to text.
9.. Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), Who doubts evolution? New
Scientist, 90:830-1, 25 June 1981. Return to text.
10.. "In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate,
a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales."
Phil Gingerich, The Whales of Tethys, Natural History, April 1994, p. 86.
Return to text.
11.. This was after Jonathan Sarfati's analysis of Pakicetus in chapter 5
of the original 1999 Refuting Evolution. Later-discovered fossils confirmed
Sarfati's prediction that this was a strictly terrestrial creature (as per
the updated version of chapter 5). Return to text.
12.. P.D. Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D.E. Russell, and S.M.I. Shah, Science
220(4595):403-6, 22 April 1983; P.D. Gingerich, Journal of Geological
Education. 31:140-144, 1983. Return to text.
13.. J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, and S.T. Hussain,
Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to
artiodactyls, Nature 413:277-281, 20 Sept. 2001. (see PDF file). Return to
text.
14.. Pakicetus . eight years on. Illustration: Carl Buell
<http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Pakicetid.html> Return to text.
15.. E.g., George B. Johnson and Peter H. Raven, Biology: Principles and
Explorations, p. 257, Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1998. This widely used
high school text gives the student no hint in the discussion around this
diagram that the pictures are fraudulent. Return to text.
16.. Ernst Mayr (100-year old Harvard University biologist and leading
evolutionist), What Evolution Is, pp. 27-30, Basic Books, New York, 2001. On
page 28 Mayr uses Haeckel's original drawings with no mention that they are
fraudulent. Return to text.
17.. Francisco J. Ayala, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American
239(3):65, Sept. 1978. Return to text.
18.. Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary,
Ontario, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990, A1. Return to text.
19.. Cited in Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, p. 23, Oxford
University Press, 2002. Return to text.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: National Geographic is right and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 12:05:18 AM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin
by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG-USA

Mortenson is another ignorant and superstitious idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Jong Kim"
Title: Re: National Geographic is right and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 03:26:26 AM

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cork2t$cgr$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin
by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG-USA

Mortenson is another ignorant and superstitious idiot.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

"Do you know anything about natural selection of universes, and the
evolution of the laws of physics?" Foo.
"Evolution cannot happen without physical death." Tyler Waite.
"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then what's
the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable
ranges? That's what I thought, anyway. I always believed the theories of
evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know,
that was it! There is nothing." Jeffrey Dahmer.
2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the
people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon
thee.
3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of
thy rising.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 60:2 - 3)
10 � And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for
an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall
be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the Lord shall set his hand
again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be
left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and
from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the
sea.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 11:10 - 11)
5 � And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his
servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet
shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my
strength.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to
raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will
also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation
unto the end of the earth.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 49:5 - 6)
1 WOE to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious
beauty [is] a fading flower, which [are] on the head of the fat valleys of
them that are overcome with wine!
2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, [which] as a tempest of
hail [and] a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing,
shall cast down to the earth with the hand.
3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet:
(Old Testament | Isaiah 28:1 - 3)
5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken
away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD;
and my name continually every day [is] blasphemed.
6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore [they shall know] in
that day that I [am] he that doth speak: behold, [it is] I.
7 � How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good
tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that
publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
(Old Testament | Isaiah 52:5 - 7)
11 � Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean [thing];
go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the
LORD.
12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will
go before you; and the God of Israel [will be] your rereward.
13 � Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and
extolled, and be very high.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 52:11 - 13)
3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I
will make an everlasting covenant with you, [even] the sure mercies of
David.
4 Behold, I have given him [for] a witness to the people, a leader and
commander to the people.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 55:3 - 4)
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.364
I shall read the 24th chapter of Matthew, and give it a literal rendering
and reading; and when it is rightly understood, it will be edifying.
I thought the very oddity of its rendering would be edifying anyhow -- "And
it will be preached, the Gospel of the kingdom, in the whole world, to a
witness over all people: and then will the end come." I will now read it in
German [which he did, and many Germans who were present said he translated
it correctly].
Interpretation of Scripture
The Savior said when these tribulations should take place, it should be
committed to a man who should be a witness over the whole world: the keys of
knowledge, power and revelations should be revealed to a witness who should
hold the testimony to the world.
THE REVELATIONS OF JESUS CHRIST
FIRST VISION While journeying on foot about 10:00 P.M. in the east, being
inducted into
the armed forces the next day, being on the way to the bus station to travel
to the armed forces induction station in Raleigh, N.C, I re�ceived the
following vision, while on the road on foot:
December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that
I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body, or whether in the body or out of
it I could not tell, and I be�held his face, and He spake unto me face to
face as one man speaks unto another for forty-five minutes or an hour, and
whet�her in the body or out of it, I could not tell, for I beheld his glory,
which surpasses all under�stand�ing, and spake while in the vi�sion, in a
much better tongue than any spoken by man at this time, which I supposed to
be the Adamic Tongue, my understand�ing being quickened by such might and
intelligence and power that it is beyond the mind of man unaided by the
Spirit of Revela�tion which dwells yet within me, to comprehend, and indeed
no words can convey, for it seemed that I was transfigured before Him of
whom I speak, my God in whom I bear record as others have before me, that
He lives, for I too have seen Him. And tongue cannot express his matchless
might, glory, power and intelligence, and I shall forever adore his glory,
for having once beheld his face and tasted of his love and might and power
and beheld things which I cannot convey, for there is no language, I must, I
MUST obtain his presence, and I shall not be content with any�thing else,
this world or its allur�ments. And having been or�dained unto the Holy
Order of God which is after the Order of Melchizedec, even the Holy
Apostle�ship, the keys of which I hold, I bear record of my Father, for I
have seen Him and con�versed with him, and I testify that He shall return in
this the Latter Day as soon as my people are straightened from this crooked
and perverse generation which shall be destroyed by the might of his power,
and that they be gath�ered out according to the Revela�tions which are being
given unto me, almost daily at this time, which is one of the darkest
peri�ods and most wicked because of unbelief in the history of the earth,
that Zion may descend and that the heavens and the earth mingle and become
One, as prayed by the Only Begotten, even my brother Jesus of Naze�reth.
Yea, my Father, I pray that thy will be done and thy King�dom come on earth
as it is in heaven. Even so. Amen.-- "The scriptures are laid before thee,
yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all
things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all
the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a
Supreme Creator." Alma."Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search
these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah. For surely he
spake as touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of
Israel; therefore it must needs be that he must speak also to the Gentiles."
Jesus the Christ."If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not
comprehend themselves." Joseph Smith."If Mormonism is able to endure,
unmodified, until it reaches the third and fourth generations, it is
destined to become the greatest power the world has ever known." Leo
Tolstoy."The same light which enlighteneth your eyes quickeneth your
understandings, saith the Lord, and is the law by which all things
aregoverned, and which, saith the Lord, changeth not, but remains constant,
that ye may have a standard by which to judge truth, and which constant
iscalled the law of light. And it is that science, saith the Lord, which
abrogates or does away with the basis of true science, or, saith the Lord,
that which is known asphysics and mathematics, which are my statutes, or the
laws by which the planets as wheel upon their wings in the immensity of
space, is it not false?" Art Bulla.The Revelations of Jesus
Christ:http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3
http://www.artbulla.comJong Kim
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: National Geographic is right and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 11:32:33 AM

===>The fundamental fallacy of creationism and its modern pseudonym
"intelligent design" is the very argument that the complex universe and
living organisms with their genetic information must have been "created"
by "someone", and that "someone" is "God", while never questioning
where, when and how such a being, capable of endowing the universe
with all those characteristics, could have existed without having been
"designed" or "created". -- L.
.

User: "Nevermore"
Title: Re: National Geographic is right and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 09:15:34 AM

In <10r30m79qfdmp58@corp.supernews.com> Jong Kim wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cork2t$cgr$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin
by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG-USA

Mortenson is another ignorant and superstitious idiot.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

All these self-serving fairy tales drawn from the same inerrant word-of-
God bible that definitively states that bats are birds?
Nevermore (You'd think God'd know that sort of stuff)

"Do you know anything about natural selection of universes, and the
evolution of the laws of physics?" Foo.

"Evolution cannot happen without physical death." Tyler Waite.

"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then
what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within
acceptable ranges? That's what I thought, anyway. I always believed
the theories of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When
we died, you know, that was it! There is nothing." Jeffrey Dahmer.

2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness
the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be
seen upon thee.

3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the
brightness of thy rising.

(Old Testament | Isaiah 60:2 - 3)

10 ? And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand
for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his
rest shall be glorious. 11 And it shall come to pass in that day, [
that] the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the
remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from
Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar,
and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

(Old Testament | Isaiah 11:10 - 11)

5 ? And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his
servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered,
yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be
my strength.

6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of
Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou
mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

(Old Testament | Isaiah 49:5 - 6)

1 WOE to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose
glorious beauty [is] a fading flower, which [are] on the head of the
fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!

2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, [which] as a tempest
of hail [and] a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters
overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.

3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under
feet:

(Old Testament | Isaiah 28:1 - 3)

5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is
taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl,
saith the LORD; and my name continually every day [is] blasphemed.

6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore [they shall know]
in that day that I [am] he that doth speak: behold, [it is] I.

7 ? How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth
good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of
good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God
reigneth!

(Old Testament | Isaiah 52:5 - 7)

11 ? Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean [
thing]; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the
vessels of the LORD.

12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD
will go before you; and the God of Israel [will be] your rereward.

13 ? Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and
extolled, and be very high.

(Old Testament | Isaiah 52:11 - 13)

3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live;
and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, [even] the sure
mercies of David.

4 Behold, I have given him [for] a witness to the people, a leader and
commander to the people.

(Old Testament | Isaiah 55:3 - 4)

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.364
I shall read the 24th chapter of Matthew, and give it a literal
rendering and reading; and when it is rightly understood, it will be
edifying.

I thought the very oddity of its rendering would be edifying anyhow --
"And it will be preached, the Gospel of the kingdom, in the whole
world, to a witness over all people: and then will the end come." I
will now read it in German [which he did, and many Germans who were
present said he translated it correctly].

Interpretation of Scripture

The Savior said when these tribulations should take place, it should
be committed to a man who should be a witness over the whole world:
the keys of knowledge, power and revelations should be revealed to a
witness who should hold the testimony to the world.

THE REVELATIONS OF JESUS CHRIST

FIRST VISION While journeying on foot about 10:00 P.M. in the east,
being inducted into the armed forces the next day, being on the way to
the bus station to travel to the armed forces induction station in
Raleigh, N.C, I re?ceived the following vision, while on the road on
foot:

December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed
that I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body, or whether in the body
or out of it I could not tell, and I be?held his face, and He spake
unto me face to face as one man speaks unto another for forty-five
minutes or an hour, and whet?her in the body or out of it, I could not
tell, for I beheld his glory, which surpasses all under?stand?ing, and
spake while in the vi?sion, in a much better tongue than any spoken by
man at this time, which I supposed to be the Adamic Tongue, my
understand?ing being quickened by such might and intelligence and
power that it is beyond the mind of man unaided by the Spirit of
Revela?tion which dwells yet within me, to comprehend, and indeed no
words can convey, for it seemed that I was transfigured before Him of
whom I speak, my God in whom I bear record as others have before me,
that He lives, for I too have seen Him. And tongue cannot express his
matchless might, glory, power and intelligence, and I shall forever
adore his glory, for having once beheld his face and tasted of his
love and might and power and beheld things which I cannot convey, for
there is no language, I must, I MUST obtain his presence, and I shall
not be content with any?thing else, this world or its allur?ments.
And having been or?dained unto the Holy Order of God which is after
the Order of Melchizedec, even the Holy Apostle?ship, the keys of
which I hold, I bear record of my Father, for I have seen Him and
con?versed with him, and I testify that He shall return in this the
Latter Day as soon as my people are straightened from this crooked and
perverse generation which shall be destroyed by the might of his power,
and that they be gath?ered out according to the Revela?tions which are
being given unto me, almost daily at this time, which is one of the
darkest peri?ods and most wicked because of unbelief in the history of
the earth, that Zion may descend and that the heavens and the earth
mingle and become One, as prayed by the Only Begotten, even my
brother Jesus of Naze?reth. Yea, my Father, I pray that thy will be
done and thy King?dom come on earth as it is in heaven. Even so. Amen.--
"The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there
is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face
of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move
in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."
Alma."Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things
diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah. For surely he spake as
touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of
Israel; therefore it must needs be that he must speak also to the
Gentiles." Jesus the Christ."If men do not comprehend the character of
God, they do not comprehend themselves." Joseph Smith."If Mormonism
is able to endure, unmodified, until it reaches the third and fourth
generations, it is destined to become the greatest power the world has
ever known." Leo Tolstoy."The same light which enlighteneth your eyes
quickeneth your understandings, saith the Lord, and is the law by
which all things aregoverned, and which, saith the Lord, changeth not,
but remains constant, that ye may have a standard by which to judge
truth, and which constant iscalled the law of light. And it is that
science, saith the Lord, which abrogates or does away with the basis
of true science, or, saith the Lord, that which is known asphysics and
mathematics, which are my statutes, or the laws by which the planets
as wheel upon their wings in the immensity of space, is it not false?"
Art Bulla.The Revelations of Jesus Christ:http://www.iuniverse.com/
bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3 http://www.artbulla.
comJong Kim

User: "Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	03 Dec 2004 07:04:26 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

Its so funny that this ***** only happens in the USA. The rest of
the planet is not trying to go back to the middle ages (admittedly
parts of it ARE already in the middle ages). If the planet is a
village then it appears that the village idiot is in charge and has
all the nukes.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	03 Dec 2004 08:36:56 PM

(Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412031704.69da7742@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?
.

User: "Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 12:03:17 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<1102127816.k0Ha9dxPrf6DGNszupok4A@bubbanews>...

pomponiox@hotmail.com (Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412031704.69da7742@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.
("somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot").
.

User: "Rhyanon"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 07:00:46 AM

"Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de
Tejas de Santa Anna" <pomponiox@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84dc9988.0412041003.147db3a6@posting.google.com...

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message

news:<1102127816.k0Ha9dxPrf6DGNszupok4A@bubbanews>...

pomponiox@hotmail.com (Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412031704.69da7742@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

answer,

"No!" But scientifically informed and careful thinking readers will

not

be persuaded by the "overwhelming evidence" (p. 4) presented.

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.
("somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot").

Well, he does come back to Crawford once in a while....

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 01:34:47 PM

"Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna" wrote:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<1102127816.k0Ha9dxPrf6DGNszupok4A@bubbanews>...

pomponiox@hotmail.com (Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412031704.69da7742@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.
("somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot").

===>The man you call "imbecile" is more intelligent than his Democrat
alternative. A study shows that "if you take the average of Bush's percentile
scores on the three composites most similar to the test Kerry took,
Bush scored at the 67th percentile, a little better than Kerry's 50th percentile."
SEE: "This Just In�Kerry's IQ Likely Lower than Bush's!"
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm
Now, if you had a REAL choice between those two and, say Badnarik,
THAT would have been quite a shock to the (below-average)
majority of voters to whom they had a 50/50 appeal (almost).
Sad, but true: the Thomas Jefferson-types no longer have a chance
to get elected.
Most of them are probably not even interested. -- L.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 10:17:21 PM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.
("somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot").

===>The man you call "imbecile" is more intelligent than his Democrat
alternative.

Not according to the available evidence.

A study shows that "if you take the average of Bush's percentile
scores on the three composites most similar to the test Kerry took,

Smirk. "How to work from conclusion to 'evidence'".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 06:21:34 PM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<41B21157.DB39DFE7@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...

"Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna" wrote:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<1102127816.k0Ha9dxPrf6DGNszupok4A@bubbanews>...

pomponiox@hotmail.com (Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412031704.69da7742@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.
("somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot").

This would be interesting if true, but aside from showing that Kerry
scored just about the mean on a Navy Officer's entrace exam, the
suppositions about the IQ of the two men are rather unsupportable.
I don't follow the jump from Officer's scores to Navy-wide SAT scores
to IQ. Huh? At times he seems to imply that Gore is in the 80th
percentile for intelligence, but then he uses a different figure to
say that his SAT score must have been lower than acclaimed Yale
cheerleader and underage drinker George Bush Jr.
The article claims that a 1205 on the SAT indicates an IQ of 120.
Bollocks. (I guess I must be a 160 thanks to my 1600 in 11th grade,
eh?)
Still, it shows W did have at least an 8th grade reading and math
level at the time (unless he cheated). From what I've read by those
who knew him then, Dubya was more intelligent (relatively) before the
coke days. At this point he's lost so many brain cells ... well, I
wouldn't want to know what his SAT score would be.
The points made about Kerry's misuse of the English language and
evident lack of brilliance are valid. No doubt he's never released his
SAT score because it's an embarrassing 1330 or something. (Oh wait,
that would be Gore, with his alleged 133-134 IQ. Lol!)
skeptically yours,
Hy
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 06:39:38 PM

Hypatia Kosh wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<41B21157.DB39DFE7@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...

"Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna" wrote:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<1102127816.k0Ha9dxPrf6DGNszupok4A@bubbanews>...

pomponiox@hotmail.com (Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412031704.69da7742@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.
("somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot").

This would be interesting if true, but aside from showing that Kerry
scored just about the mean on a Navy Officer's entrace exam, the
suppositions about the IQ of the two men are rather unsupportable.

I don't follow the jump from Officer's scores to Navy-wide SAT scores
to IQ.
Huh? At times he seems to imply that Gore is in the 80th
percentile for intelligence, but then he uses a different figure to
say that his SAT score must have been lower than acclaimed Yale
cheerleader and underage drinker George Bush Jr.

The article claims that a 1205 on the SAT indicates an IQ of 120.
Bollocks. (I guess I must be a 160 thanks to my 1600 in 11th grade,
eh?)

Still, it shows W did have at least an 8th grade reading and math
level at the time (unless he cheated). From what I've read by those
who knew him then, Dubya was more intelligent (relatively) before the
coke days. At this point he's lost so many brain cells ... well, I
wouldn't want to know what his SAT score would be.

The points made about Kerry's misuse of the English language and
evident lack of brilliance are valid. No doubt he's never released his
SAT score because it's an embarrassing 1330 or something. (Oh wait,
that would be Gore, with his alleged 133-134 IQ. Lol!)

skeptically yours,

Hy

===>You missed my point or focused on the wrong
item. -- L.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 10:07:34 PM

(Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412041003.147db3a6@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102127816.k0Ha9dxPrf6DGNszupok4A@bubbanews>...

(Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412031704.69da7742@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.

Imbeciles don't get into Yale.

("somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot").

Lame.
.

User: "Larry Heath"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 06:51:11 PM

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1102219654.p44371iK0eTeqCIxez2lnA@bubbanews...

pomponiox@hotmail.com (Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412041003.147db3a6@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102127816.k0Ha9dxPrf6DGNszupok4A@bubbanews>...

pomponiox@hotmail.com (Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna) wrote in
news:84dc9988.0412031704.69da7742@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1102094102.nn0FgQysk1yoWfIle4NREA@bubbanews>...

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.

Imbeciles don't get into Yale.

("somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot").

Lame.

Sure they do there called legacies.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	04 Dec 2004 11:05:03 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up their
nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.

Imbeciles don't get into Yale.

Sure they do. It just costs a little more. In fact they even GIVE
out Doctorate degrees if you're famous enough or rich enough.
http://www.yale.edu/opa/v27.n33/story102.html
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 06:58:55 AM

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cou4tu$15p$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up
their nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.

Imbeciles don't get into Yale.

Sure they do. It just costs a little more. In fact they even GIVE
out Doctorate degrees if you're famous enough or rich enough.

http://www.yale.edu/opa/v27.n33/story102.html

Bush doesn't have an honorary degree. Bush doesn't have a doctorate. You are
a moron.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 12:27:09 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up
their nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the trigger.

Imbeciles don't get into Yale.

Sure they do. It just costs a little more. In fact they even GIVE
out Doctorate degrees if you're famous enough or rich enough.

http://www.yale.edu/opa/v27.n33/story102.html

Bush doesn't have an honorary degree.

I didn't say that he did, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 04:35:59 PM

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:covjtt$na1$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Oh? And when did countries like France, Russia, and China give up
their nuclear weapons?

Yep, but they do not have an imbecile with his finger on the
trigger.

Imbeciles don't get into Yale.

Sure they do. It just costs a little more. In fact they even GIVE
out Doctorate degrees if you're famous enough or rich enough.

http://www.yale.edu/opa/v27.n33/story102.html

Bush doesn't have an honorary degree.

I didn't say that he did, moron.

Then your link is worthless.
.

User: "Dan Drake"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 07:37:45 AM

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 12:58:55 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Bush doesn't have an honorary degree. Bush doesn't have a doctorate. You are
a moron.

The point that is being made, that you seem to be having trouble
grasping, is that GWBush is a moron with a rich and influential daddy.
Perhaps it would become clearer to you if you went back and re-read
the last few posts in the thread?
HTH.
--
Dan Drake
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 04:46:30 PM

Dan Drake <ddrake@comcast.notthis.net> wrote in
news:7j36r0da9ofscgfue81tkc4a48okdlvbp1@4ax.com:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 12:58:55 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Bush doesn't have an honorary degree. Bush doesn't have a doctorate.
You are a moron.

The point that is being made, that you seem to be having trouble
grasping, is that GWBush is a moron

Based on what?

with a rich and influential daddy.

Your point?
.

User: "Dan Drake"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 04:58:30 PM

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:46:30 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

The point that is being made, that you seem to be having trouble
grasping, is that GWBush is a moron

Based on what?

I can't be bothered if you're not going to pay attention to what's
being discussed.

with a rich and influential daddy.

Your point?

That Bush is a moron. C'mon, the thread's not *that* difficult to
follow.
--
Dan Drake
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	06 Dec 2004 09:12:23 AM

Dan Drake <ddrake@comcast.notthis.net> wrote in
news:4e47r0t1ms69cqv26o6v3k7b15dp98b0f4@4ax.com:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:46:30 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

The point that is being made, that you seem to be having trouble
grasping, is that GWBush is a moron

Based on what?

I can't be bothered if you're not going to pay attention to what's
being discussed.

Your lack of evidence and admission of defeat is duly noted.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	06 Dec 2004 09:16:19 AM

Dan Drake <ddrake@comcast.notthis.net> wrote in
news:4e47r0t1ms69cqv26o6v3k7b15dp98b0f4@4ax.com:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:46:30 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

The point that is being made, that you seem to be having trouble
grasping, is that GWBush is a moron

Based on what?

I can't be bothered if you're not going to pay attention to what's
being discussed.

Your lack of evidence and admission of defeat is duly noted.
.

User: "Dan Drake"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	06 Dec 2004 03:24:02 PM

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:16:19 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Your lack of evidence and admission of defeat is duly noted.

I heard you the first time, fuckwit.
--
Dan Drake
.

User: "Steve Daniels"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin	05 Dec 2004 05:10:54 PM

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:58:30 -0500, something compelled Dan Drake
<ddrake@comcast.notthis.net>, to say:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:46:30 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

The point that is being made, that you seem to be having trouble
grasping, is that GWBush is a moron

Based on what?

I can't be bothered if you're not going to pay attention to what's
being discussed.

with a rich and influential daddy.

Your point?

That Bush is a moron. C'mon, the thread's not *that* difficult to
follow.

You're wrestling a pig.
.

User: "Dan Drake"
Title: Re: National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin</