Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"

Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 54 of 57

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Jd"
Date:	30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM
Object:	Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"

Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.

User: "Gabriel"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	08 Aug 2007 05:01:16 PM

Hi Lunch,
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:l7e6b3d7jak5604ganj9tai0vm3kr6tmvf@4ax.com...

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<CLGsi.394108$p47.162180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Mike,

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bovsi.1893$ox5.1252@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

Gabriel wrote:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gscsi.1973$Yz6.1523@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

Evidence please.

Science says it is.
If you don't like it, then get all of science to change the
definition. If you have a gripe with it then you have a gripe with
*all*
science.
Evolution is better understood and has been studied more than many
things in science.

Evidence that "(evolution above the species level) has been observed
many times".

We've no evidence that species morph into new species, or even
gradual signs of it. New features that no parent in the past EVER had.

We only have evidence that an offspring has a feature that some
parent had too. No evidence that an offspring has a feature that no
parent in the past _ever_ had. Huge difference.

And so again, since he claims we have observed this many times, again
I ask: evidence please.

It's been given to you. You refuse to accept it.
You are one step below the sophmoric "prove you exist" question.

Ah the infamous opinion "it's been given to me". No, it hasn't. Only thing
given is the very different observation of micro-evolution: a species
staying the exact same species, but with small cosmetic differences. You
have NO evidence of species morphing over generations into a brand new
species that no parent in the past ever was. It's this lack of evidence
you
refuse to accept.

Once again, you ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution
happened, this includes:

- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record

All evidence of design or evolution. No way to tell which it is, or
something else entirely perhaps.

- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies

No proof of macro-evolution. Gives pretty reasons WHY you _think_ it
happened, but not evidence of how it leads to non-fliers growing wings, and
that's just for starters.

- Behavioral studies

Nothing to do with showing HOW a land animal with no wings morphs over time
into a new one that flies. Just why you _think_ it happened.

- Radiometric dating

So you know how old things are. That's not evidence that one morphed over
generations from the other one.

- Radically different collection of flora

You do realize plants are not animals I hope?

and fauna
during progressive eras

Same as fossils above. As much evidence of creation by design as of magical
morphing evolution.

- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation

All as much evidence of creation by design as evolution.

So, why do you keep making false claims about science? Are you paid to
lie? Does your religion teach you to lie?

So why do you keep making false claims about your religion of evolution? Are
you paid to lie? Does your religion of evolution teach you to lie?
Bring the intermediate forms. You have none.
Bring the observable evidence of a species morphing over generations into a
drastically different species. You have none.
Bring the verifiable evidence. You have none.
Bring the testable evidence. You have none.
Thanks for posting your opinions.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	09 Aug 2007 05:57:16 AM

"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bring the intermediate forms.

YOU are an intermediate form. So am I.
The Theory of Evolution requires no other kind of intermediate form.
lojbab
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	08 Aug 2007 07:32:52 PM

Gabriel wrote:
<snip>

Bring the intermediate forms. You have none.
Bring the observable evidence of a species morphing over generations
into a drastically different species. You have none.
Bring the verifiable evidence. You have none.
Bring the testable evidence. You have none.
Thanks for posting your opinions.

Gabrial continues to show that he has no interest in learning science and
that he does not know what a theory is.
.

User: "Martin"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	19 Aug 2007 06:37:24 AM

On Aug 9, 6:01 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Lunch,

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:l7e6b3d7jak5604ganj9tai0vm3kr6tmvf@4ax.com...

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<CLGsi.394108$p47.162...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Mike,

"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bovsi.1893$ox5.1252@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

Gabriel wrote:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gscsi.1973$Yz6.1523@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

Evidence please.

Evidence that "(evolution above the species level) has been observed
many times".

We've no evidence that species morph into new species, or even
gradual signs of it. New features that no parent in the past EVER had.

We only have evidence that an offspring has a feature that some
parent had too. No evidence that an offspring has a feature that no
parent in the past _ever_ had. Huge difference.

And so again, since he claims we have observed this many times, again
I ask: evidence please.

It's been given to you. You refuse to accept it.
You are one step below the sophmoric "prove you exist" question.

Once again, you ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution
happened, this includes:

- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record

All evidence of design or evolution. No way to tell which it is, or
something else entirely perhaps.

- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies

No proof of macro-evolution. Gives pretty reasons WHY you _think_ it
happened, but not evidence of how it leads to non-fliers growing wings, and
that's just for starters.

- Behavioral studies

Nothing to do with showing HOW a land animal with no wings morphs over time
into a new one that flies. Just why you _think_ it happened.

- Radiometric dating

So you know how old things are. That's not evidence that one morphed over
generations from the other one.

- Radically different collection of flora

You do realize plants are not animals I hope?

and fauna
during progressive eras

Same as fossils above. As much evidence of creation by design as of magical
morphing evolution.

- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation

All as much evidence of creation by design as evolution.

So, why do you keep making false claims about science? Are you paid to
lie? Does your religion teach you to lie?

So why do you keep making false claims about your religion of evolution?

Evolution is not a religion, you lying piece of *****.

Are
you paid to lie? Does your religion of evolution teach you to lie?

Bring the intermediate forms. You have none.

We are all intermediate forms. Well except for losers like you who
will never get laid and therefore can't reproduce.

Bring the observable evidence of a species morphing over generations into a
drastically different species. You have none.
Bring the verifiable evidence. You have none.
Bring the testable evidence. You have none.

http://www.talkorigins.org and above.
Martin
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	08 Aug 2007 05:41:45 PM

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:01:16 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<M2rui.25443$ax1.25192@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Lunch,

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:l7e6b3d7jak5604ganj9tai0vm3kr6tmvf@4ax.com...

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<CLGsi.394108$p47.162180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Mike,

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bovsi.1893$ox5.1252@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

Gabriel wrote:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gscsi.1973$Yz6.1523@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

Evidence please.

It's been given to you. You refuse to accept it.
You are one step below the sophmoric "prove you exist" question.

Once again, you ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution
happened, this includes:

- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record

All evidence of design or evolution. No way to tell which it is, or
something else entirely perhaps.

Please tell me how these are evidence for design. Do you claim that the
'intelligent designer' has been designing off and on for millions of
years? Are you retreating to a variation of theistic evolution?

- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies

No proof of macro-evolution. Gives pretty reasons WHY you _think_ it
happened, but not evidence of how it leads to non-fliers growing wings, and
that's just for starters.

But you don't get to dismiss each one without looking at the evidence
for all of them. Scientists don't use the word proof, they look for
evidence. The evidence is consistent with evolution.
The way you present creationism, there is no testable way, since you
assert that everything is evidence for an intelligent designer.

- Behavioral studies

Nothing to do with showing HOW a land animal with no wings morphs over time
into a new one that flies. Just why you _think_ it happened.

We know that winged land animals have evolved from both dinosaurs and
mammals. The genetic information is consistent. That has nothing to do
with the point of that body of evidence.

- Radiometric dating

So you know how old things are. That's not evidence that one morphed over
generations from the other one.

It is part of the evidence. You have to explain why all organisms on
earth have had a specific time on earth, why humans did not exist when
there were dinosaurs. What exactly did your creator do? Give me a
testable hypothesis, not just a religious assertion.

- Radically different collection of flora

You do realize plants are not animals I hope?

So what? They are life on earth and the evidence shows us that they
share a common ancestry with animals.

and fauna
during progressive eras

Same as fossils above. As much evidence of creation by design as of magical
morphing evolution.

Again, I need you to explain how this is evidence for a designer.

- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation

All as much evidence of creation by design as evolution.

How is there any evidence for a designer?

So, why do you keep making false claims about science? Are you paid to
lie? Does your religion teach you to lie?

So why do you keep making false claims about your religion of evolution? Are
you paid to lie? Does your religion of evolution teach you to lie?

You know that evolution is not a religion, yet you lie about that. You
know I am not lying, but cannot admit publicly that evolution happened.
You have shown by your critique that you know very little science and
don't understand that.

Bring the intermediate forms. You have none.

False. Just because you arbitrarily choose to dismiss intermediate forms
that does not mean that there are no intermediate forms.

Bring the observable evidence of a species morphing over generations into a
drastically different species. You have none.

If "a species morph[ed] over generations into a drastically different
species" evolution would have a problem. Variation and speciation are
very slow processes.

Bring the verifiable evidence. You have none.

The evidence is before you. Learn some science to see it.

Bring the testable evidence. You have none.

It has been provided and tested. Scientists are convinced. You are not a
scientist and you are wedded to your ignorant biases. You have decided
that your opinion should not be considered worthwhile because you refuse
to gather evidence to find out whether your opinion is valid.

Thanks for posting your opinions.

Thanks for posting your lies. Thank you for refusing to learn anything
about science.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
.

User: "Gabriel"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	08 Aug 2007 09:28:14 PM

Hi Lunch,
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vkhkb39gi1his2f0pdguac049v4d8gbcfu@4ax.com...

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:01:16 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<M2rui.25443$ax1.25192@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Lunch,

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:l7e6b3d7jak5604ganj9tai0vm3kr6tmvf@4ax.com...

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<CLGsi.394108$p47.162180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Mike,

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bovsi.1893$ox5.1252@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

Gabriel wrote:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gscsi.1973$Yz6.1523@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

Evidence please.

Evidence that "(evolution above the species level) has been observed
many times".

We've no evidence that species morph into new species, or even
gradual signs of it. New features that no parent in the past EVER
had.

We only have evidence that an offspring has a feature that some
parent had too. No evidence that an offspring has a feature that no
parent in the past _ever_ had. Huge difference.

And so again, since he claims we have observed this many times, again
I ask: evidence please.

It's been given to you. You refuse to accept it.
You are one step below the sophmoric "prove you exist" question.

Ah the infamous opinion "it's been given to me". No, it hasn't. Only
thing
given is the very different observation of micro-evolution: a species
staying the exact same species, but with small cosmetic differences. You
have NO evidence of species morphing over generations into a brand new
species that no parent in the past ever was. It's this lack of evidence
you
refuse to accept.

Once again, you ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution
happened, this includes:

- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record

All evidence of design or evolution. No way to tell which it is, or
something else entirely perhaps.

Please tell me how these are evidence for design.

Evidence for design OR evolution. Tell me how any of those is unique to
indicating it's evolution and nothing else: not design, and not perhaps
something else that isn't evolution either that has yet to perhaps even be
discovered.

Do you claim that the
'intelligent designer' has been designing off and on for millions of
years? Are you retreating to a variation of theistic evolution?

Stick to your evolution. Just because you think it's not evidence of design
does not automatically qualify it as conclusive evidence of the only other
thing you can think of: evolution. That's an argument from ignorance (look
that up), which is not a scientific argument.

- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies

No proof of macro-evolution. Gives pretty reasons WHY you _think_ it
happened, but not evidence of how it leads to non-fliers growing wings,
and
that's just for starters.

But you don't get to dismiss each one without looking at the evidence
for all of them.

It's not evidence for evolution. It's a claim that this is _why_ you _think_
it took place. Whys are nice, but evidence for the how is what's critical
and completely absent. Along with any proof of intermediate forms that
_must_ exist if the evolution is as slow as is claimed, taking numerous
generations.

Scientists don't use the word proof, they look for
evidence. The evidence is consistent with evolution.

And is consistent with design as well, and micro-evolution.

The way you present creationism, there is no testable way, since you
assert that everything is evidence for an intelligent designer.

Moot point, except the way evolution is presented it's not testable either.

- Behavioral studies

Nothing to do with showing HOW a land animal with no wings morphs over
time
into a new one that flies. Just why you _think_ it happened.

We know that winged land animals have evolved from both dinosaurs and
mammals.

This is not true. You guess that it is. Where are the intermediate forms of
land dinosaurs that were in the process over numerous generations of
evolving into winged creatures that fly? There is none.

The genetic information is consistent. That has nothing to do
with the point of that body of evidence.

DNA evidence, and similarity therein, is as much "evidence" of creation by
design as of evolution. Hence it's really "evidence" of neither.

- Radiometric dating

So you know how old things are. That's not evidence that one morphed over
generations from the other one.

It is part of the evidence. You have to explain why all organisms on
earth have had a specific time on earth, why humans did not exist when
there were dinosaurs.

That's fine. But that doesn't mean you know things evolved. Again, it's not
evidence of evolution, just more "why"s you think it happened.

What exactly did your creator do? Give me a
testable hypothesis, not just a religious assertion.

Moot point. You already say it's not science. The point being argued here is
evolution is just as untouchable from a scientific viewpoint as creation by
design.

- Radically different collection of flora

You do realize plants are not animals I hope?

So what? They are life on earth and the evidence shows us that they
share a common ancestry with animals.

Show me something testable, observable, and verifiable that plants can now
morph into animals.

and fauna
during progressive eras

Same as fossils above. As much evidence of creation by design as of
magical
morphing evolution.

Again, I need you to explain how this is evidence for a designer.

Just like similar cars using similar parts that look similar is evidence of
a designer, or perhaps evidence of evolution. A designer could easily give
them many similarities. So these similarities are evidence of both design
and evolution, and hence not evidence at all of either of them _in
particular_.

- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation

All as much evidence of creation by design as evolution.

How is there any evidence for a designer?

See above.

So, why do you keep making false claims about science? Are you paid to
lie? Does your religion teach you to lie?

So why do you keep making false claims about your religion of evolution?
Are
you paid to lie? Does your religion of evolution teach you to lie?

You know that evolution is not a religion, yet you lie about that.

It's truth when you have nothing observable, testable, verifiable, which is
how science operates. Creation by design, from a science point of view, also
has nothing observable, testable, verifiable to the atheist scientist. So
they bear striking similarity.

You
know I am not lying, but cannot admit publicly that evolution happened.
You have shown by your critique that you know very little science and
don't understand that.

You seem to think science is making up things that are not observable,
testable or verifiable. That being the case, I don't think you qualify in
indicating who does or does not understand science.

Bring the intermediate forms. You have none.

False. Just because you arbitrarily choose to dismiss intermediate forms
that does not mean that there are no intermediate forms.

Show evidence of the intermediate forms then. Enough with the opinions and
bring the FACTS. Show evidence of these intermediate forms.

Bring the observable evidence of a species morphing over generations into
a
drastically different species. You have none.

If "a species morph[ed] over generations into a drastically different
species" evolution would have a problem. Variation and speciation are
very slow processes.

Over generations. The slower you make the process out to be, the more
glaring it is that you have NO conclusive intermediate forms to show
evidence of this. No evidence = non-scientific guess.

Bring the verifiable evidence. You have none.

The evidence is before you. Learn some science to see it.

You bring your opinion, don't back it up, but instead follow it with
insults. I rest my case.

Bring the testable evidence. You have none.

You bring your opinion, don't back it up, but instead follow it with an
insults. I rest my case.

Thanks for posting your opinions.

Thanks for posting your lies. Thank you for refusing to learn anything
about science.

You bring your opinion, don't back it up, but instead follow it with an
insults. I rest my case.
Good luck with your own version of what you think is science. You clearly
want to offer your opinion and insults as your version of evidence. Take
care.

--

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

User: "Martin"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	19 Aug 2007 07:03:25 AM

On Aug 9, 10:28 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Your god doesn't exist. Thus you have no mechanism to explain
"design". It's that simple.

Pteradactyls.
Martin
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	09 Aug 2007 04:44:48 PM

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:28:14 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<2Zuui.410690$p47.198287@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Lunch,

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vkhkb39gi1his2f0pdguac049v4d8gbcfu@4ax.com...

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:01:16 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<M2rui.25443$ax1.25192@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Lunch,

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:l7e6b3d7jak5604ganj9tai0vm3kr6tmvf@4ax.com...

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<CLGsi.394108$p47.162180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Hi Mike,

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bovsi.1893$ox5.1252@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

Gabriel wrote:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gscsi.1973$Yz6.1523@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

Evidence please.

Evidence that "(evolution above the species level) has been observed
many times".

We've no evidence that species morph into new species, or even
gradual signs of it. New features that no parent in the past EVER
had.

We only have evidence that an offspring has a feature that some
parent had too. No evidence that an offspring has a feature that no
parent in the past _ever_ had. Huge difference.

And so again, since he claims we have observed this many times, again
I ask: evidence please.

It's been given to you. You refuse to accept it.
You are one step below the sophmoric "prove you exist" question.

Ah the infamous opinion "it's been given to me". No, it hasn't. Only
thing
given is the very different observation of micro-evolution: a species
staying the exact same species, but with small cosmetic differences. You
have NO evidence of species morphing over generations into a brand new
species that no parent in the past ever was. It's this lack of evidence
you
refuse to accept.

Once again, you ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution
happened, this includes:

- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record

All evidence of design or evolution. No way to tell which it is, or
something else entirely perhaps.

Please tell me how these are evidence for design.

You need to describe a scientifically testable form of design, not
merely assert that various bits of evidence qualify as support.

Do you claim that the
'intelligent designer' has been designing off and on for millions of
years? Are you retreating to a variation of theistic evolution?

Tell me where your testable model is. If you can randomly assert after
the fact that X is evidence for Y, you aren't doing science. You need to
develop a testable model that is consistent with the current evidence
and makes useful predictions about future discoveries.

- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies

No proof of macro-evolution. Gives pretty reasons WHY you _think_ it
happened, but not evidence of how it leads to non-fliers growing wings,
and
that's just for starters.

But you don't get to dismiss each one without looking at the evidence
for all of them.

It's not evidence for evolution.

Of course it is.

It's a claim that this is _why_ you _think_
it took place. Whys are nice, but evidence for the how is what's critical
and completely absent.

The how is quite well explained by scientists. You are totally
dishonest, not merely ignorant, when you assert that the evidence is
completely absent.

Along with any proof of intermediate forms that
_must_ exist if the evolution is as slow as is claimed, taking numerous
generations.

But there are intermediate forms, your dismissal of them shows, once
again that you are not being honest here.

Scientists don't use the word proof, they look for
evidence. The evidence is consistent with evolution.

And is consistent with design as well, and micro-evolution.

When everything is consistent with design, design has no meaning. Until
the design people develop a testable scientific hypothesis, they are
just blowing smoke. There is no theory of intelligent design. It's just
a religious doctrine.

The way you present creationism, there is no testable way, since you
assert that everything is evidence for an intelligent designer.

Moot point, except the way evolution is presented it's not testable either.

It has been tested by the evidence and continues to pass. Again, you lie
when you state that it is not testable.

- Behavioral studies

Nothing to do with showing HOW a land animal with no wings morphs over
time
into a new one that flies. Just why you _think_ it happened.

We know that winged land animals have evolved from both dinosaurs and
mammals.

If the only evidence for evolution were fossils, then you might have a
worthwhile objection, but it isn't. You are particularly careful to
ignore both the genetic evidence and the nested hierarchies.
Why don't you explain why the 'designer' never used designs from other
branches of life, mixing and matching good ideas rather than reinventing
to meet a need that had already been met in another branch of life?
Designers do that regularly, but the designer that you claim designed
life never did -- not in animals. In plants, of course, we get new
species as plants sometimes interbreed in unexpected cross-species
hybrids, so we know even from the past century that your claim about
macroevolution is false.

The genetic information is consistent. That has nothing to do
with the point of that body of evidence.

DNA evidence, and similarity therein, is as much "evidence" of creation by
design as of evolution. Hence it's really "evidence" of neither.

How is it evidence of design? How does the nested hierarchy support
design? Is the designer blind and completely ignorant of all other life
forms? Is the designer stuck with only one organism to change into the
next one?

- Radiometric dating

So you know how old things are. That's not evidence that one morphed over
generations from the other one.

It is part of the evidence. You have to explain why all organisms on
earth have had a specific time on earth, why humans did not exist when
there were dinosaurs.

That's fine. But that doesn't mean you know things evolved. Again, it's not
evidence of evolution, just more "why"s you think it happened.

What is your explanation for the time series of life changing on earth?
What do you call it, if not evolution? Of course we know it happened.

What exactly did your creator do? Give me a
testable hypothesis, not just a religious assertion.

Moot point. You already say it's not science. The point being argued here is
evolution is just as untouchable from a scientific viewpoint as creation by
design.

But you are lying when you make that claim. Evolution is completely
testable. Many of the early ideas about the mechanisms turned out to be
wrong because we didn't know enough about genetics to know why life
changed over time. The discoveries of genetics were not only completely
consistent with the idea that life changes over time by variation and
natural selection, but also provided a usable, testable and tested,
method of seeing how it happens.
Creationists like you don't have anything but your religious mantra:
Goddidit.

- Radically different collection of flora

You do realize plants are not animals I hope?

So what? They are life on earth and the evidence shows us that they
share a common ancestry with animals.

Show me something testable, observable, and verifiable that plants can now
morph into animals.

Plants did not morph into animals. No scientist ever claimed they did.
Plants and animals share a common ancestry of life forms that predated
plants and animals.

and fauna
during progressive eras

Same as fossils above. As much evidence of creation by design as of
magical
morphing evolution.

Again, I need you to explain how this is evidence for a designer.

But no two animals have ever borrowed from something outside their
nested hierarchy. This is not evidence for design at all. If there were
parts that were shared without regard to the nested hierarchy, you would
have a legitimate claim. Right now, you have a blind, ignorant designer
who is not allowed to look at any other designs, other than the ones of
the ancestors.

- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation

All as much evidence of creation by design as evolution.

How is there any evidence for a designer?

See above.

No evidence.

So, why do you keep making false claims about science? Are you paid to
lie? Does your religion teach you to lie?

So why do you keep making false claims about your religion of evolution?
Are
you paid to lie? Does your religion of evolution teach you to lie?

You know that evolution is not a religion, yet you lie about that.

So that is why you lie about the evidence for evolution. You try to drag
it down to the false religious claims that you are making. You know that
your religious claims cannot be supported by evidence so you choose to
lie about the evidence that does exist for evolution.

You
know I am not lying, but cannot admit publicly that evolution happened.
You have shown by your critique that you know very little science and
don't understand that.

You seem to think science is making up things that are not observable,
testable or verifiable.

More lies from you. You know that evolution is supported by evidence,
but your blinkered religious doctrines don't allow you to accept those
facts.

That being the case, I don't think you qualify in
indicating who does or does not understand science.

I do know that you are lying. I don't really care if you actually
understand science when you lie about it. Your dishonesty is clear for
all to see. Your religious doctrines betray you.

Bring the intermediate forms. You have none.

False. Just because you arbitrarily choose to dismiss intermediate forms
that does not mean that there are no intermediate forms.

Show evidence of the intermediate forms then. Enough with the opinions and
bring the FACTS. Show evidence of these intermediate forms.

There are plenty of intermediate forms. Why do you ignore them? There is
also genetic information that reinforces that hierarchy. You ignore that
as well.

Bring the observable evidence of a species morphing over generations into
a
drastically different species. You have none.

If "a species morph[ed] over generations into a drastically different
species" evolution would have a problem. Variation and speciation are
very slow processes.

Over generations. The slower you make the process out to be, the more
glaring it is that you have NO conclusive intermediate forms to show
evidence of this. No evidence = non-scientific guess.

More religiously inspired lies. There is evidence, you ignore it. There
are intermediate forms, you lie and claim they don't exist.

Bring the verifiable evidence. You have none.

The evidence is before you. Learn some science to see it.

You bring your opinion, don't back it up, but instead follow it with
insults. I rest my case.

The evidence has been pointed out to you in the past. You refused to
look at it. You lie about it. You worship your ignorance. Go learn some
science. Take a class in evolution or genetics. Stop telling lies about
science.

Bring the testable evidence. You have none.

You bring your opinion, don't back it up, but instead follow it with an
insults. I rest my case.

I call you a liar because you are a liar. I am not insulting you. I am
standing up against the lies you tell and the religious nonsense that
motivates you to tell those lies. You have demonstrated beyond a
reasonable doubt that you will never accept evolution as long as you
accept the religious doctrines that you want to sell us here.

Thanks for posting your opinions.

Thanks for posting your lies. Thank you for refusing to learn anything
about science.

You bring your opinion, don't back it up, but instead follow it with an
insults. I rest my case.

The facts have been provided to you many times in the past. You have
demonstrated that you will not learn anything about evolution, that you
will lie about it instead. Your case is vile and corrupt, a putrid mass
of religiously-inspired dishonesty.

Good luck with your own version of what you think is science. You clearly
want to offer your opinion and insults as your version of evidence. Take
care.

I did not insult you. I pointed out a fact. You are a liar. You refuse
to accept scientific evidence.
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	03 Aug 2007 05:55:59 PM

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:19:54 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<CLGsi.394108$p47.162180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
Once again, you ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution
happened, this includes:

- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation

So, why do you keep making false claims about science? Are you paid to
lie? Does your religion teach you to lie?

Yes.
There's a long and dishonourable tradition going back to their church
fathers. It's not considered a lie if it is in the service of their
religion.
It's supposed to make it easier to convert the unthinkingly gullible.
But they haven't the sense not to do it to the more intelligent and
better educated.
In their minds these lies for God don't make them liars and they are
mortally offended when called liars for it.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	03 Aug 2007 06:11:10 PM

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:55:59 -0400, in alt.atheism
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
<adc7b3tgtmmimglgm8enf2n6miamvjsajj@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:19:54 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<CLGsi.394108$p47.162180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Once again, you ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution
happened, this includes:

- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation

So, why do you keep making false claims about science? Are you paid to
lie? Does your religion teach you to lie?

Yes.

There's a long and dishonourable tradition going back to their church
fathers. It's not considered a lie if it is in the service of their
religion.

It's supposed to make it easier to convert the unthinkingly gullible.

But they haven't the sense not to do it to the more intelligent and
better educated.

In their minds these lies for God don't make them liars and they are
mortally offended when called liars for it.

Strangely, one of the most revered of the Church Fathers was opposed to
such silliness, but evangelicals and fundamentalists don't want to
listen to someone like Augustine. They may never have heard of him.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	03 Aug 2007 06:42:04 PM

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:11:10 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:55:59 -0400, in alt.atheism
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
<adc7b3tgtmmimglgm8enf2n6miamvjsajj@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:19:54 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:14:58 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<CLGsi.394108$p47.162180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:

Yes.

There's a long and dishonourable tradition going back to their church
fathers. It's not considered a lie if it is in the service of their
religion.

It's supposed to make it easier to convert the unthinkingly gullible.

But they haven't the sense not to do it to the more intelligent and
better educated.

In their minds these lies for God don't make them liars and they are
mortally offended when called liars for it.

There's his famous passage on citing the Bible to people who know
differently from practical experience and observation, but even he
wasn't above lying "in the service of God".
"I was already Bishop of Hippo when I went into Ethiopia, with a
number of servants of Christ, in order to preach the Gospel there. In
that country we saw numbers of men and women who had no heads, but
had two large eyes in the breast; and in countries still more to the
south, we found a people who had but one eye, and that placed in the
middle of the forehead."

.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	02 Aug 2007 10:14:06 AM

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:48:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<gCbsi.389675$p47.235290@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hi Matt,

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:q3cka3t1vs5gka072860fhgp5prj2td1pa@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:18:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<6hmqi.373398$p47.237316@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hi Matt,

Here it is again (it's in 3-4 places now, including another thread titled
evolution):

Here's why evolution is not only a belief, and not even close to being
science. And actually evidence it's false, as if what they claim is true,
there should easily be a certain kind of evidence, and that evidence does
not exist.

This needs to be reposted because many (not all) evolutionists don't like
to
read other posts and instead insist on asking the same questions that have
been debunked in numerous posts. So this document serves as doing their
work
for them and bringing the argument right back in front of them so they can
keep from avoiding the truth.

[1] A clarification: Macro-evolution (morphing)

That is not what macro-evolution means. If you are going to discuss
science, us the scientific definitions of words. Macro-evolution is
evolution at or above the species level. It has been observed many
times.

Evidence please.

Provided in the post you responded to. Go back and try again.
[snip]

[1b] Now take Macro-evolution. This is now what they try to claim.

And observe:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common
Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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

Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Gabriel"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	02 Aug 2007 04:18:10 PM

Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m3t3b39aph3nemc5o5noogtn0rbrt724b2@4ax.com...

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:48:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<gCbsi.389675$p47.235290@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hi Matt,

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:q3cka3t1vs5gka072860fhgp5prj2td1pa@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:18:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<6hmqi.373398$p47.237316@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hi Matt,

Here it is again (it's in 3-4 places now, including another thread
titled
evolution):

Here's why evolution is not only a belief, and not even close to being
science. And actually evidence it's false, as if what they claim is
true,
there should easily be a certain kind of evidence, and that evidence
does
not exist.

This needs to be reposted because many (not all) evolutionists don't
like
to
read other posts and instead insist on asking the same questions that
have
been debunked in numerous posts. So this document serves as doing their
work
for them and bringing the argument right back in front of them so they
can
keep from avoiding the truth.

[1] A clarification: Macro-evolution (morphing)

Evidence please.

Provided in the post you responded to. Go back and try again.
[snip]

No it wasn't. You alluded to what was micro-evolution.
So, again: evidence please. If you have it, would be trivial to show it
here. Not surprising you don't and instead act like it's "hidden" in
previous posts.

[1b] Now take Macro-evolution. This is now what they try to claim.

[snip]

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	03 Aug 2007 09:43:39 AM

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:18:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<mSrsi.391986$p47.110477@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hi Matt,

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m3t3b39aph3nemc5o5noogtn0rbrt724b2@4ax.com...

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:48:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<gCbsi.389675$p47.235290@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hi Matt,

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:q3cka3t1vs5gka072860fhgp5prj2td1pa@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:18:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<6hmqi.373398$p47.237316@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hi Matt,

Here it is again (it's in 3-4 places now, including another thread
titled
evolution):

Here's why evolution is not only a belief, and not even close to being
science. And actually evidence it's false, as if what they claim is
true,
there should easily be a certain kind of evidence, and that evidence
does
not exist.

This needs to be reposted because many (not all) evolutionists don't
like
to
read other posts and instead insist on asking the same questions that
have
been debunked in numerous posts. So this document serves as doing their
work
for them and bringing the argument right back in front of them so they
can
keep from avoiding the truth.

[1] A clarification: Macro-evolution (morphing)

Evidence please.

Provided in the post you responded to. Go back and try again.
[snip]

No it wasn't. You alluded to what was micro-evolution.

No, I gave references to evidence of macroevolution. That is why one
of the articles has "macro-evolution" in the title and the others
refer to speciation.

So, again: evidence please. If you have it, would be trivial to show it
here. Not surprising you don't and instead act like it's "hidden" in
previous posts.

I did, they are still there.

[1b] Now take Macro-evolution. This is now what they try to claim.

Here is more you ignored:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Fossil Horses FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	29 Jul 2007 06:52:29 PM

PhDs in WHAT? -- L.
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	29 Jul 2007 05:58:37 PM

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:52:29 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

PhDs in WHAT? -- L.

Autoeroticism.
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	02 Aug 2007 10:13:04 PM

On Jul 26, 10:27 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Andres,

"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in message

news:1185488681.876195.122920@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 26, 9:33 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Kate,

"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message

news:471a0e3c.2250125187@news-west.newscene.com...

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:55:54 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mike,

"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zjVoi.10285$eY.1078@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

For those of you following the religion of evolution, or wondering
if you should, it might seriously help you to notice how the vast
majority of the time these followers don't offer proof, just
opinions and often insults. It's clearly not a science they're
following, but a religion that breeds hate and contempt.

It's clear from the above that the writer does not know much about
science.
It is also true that "vast majority of the time these followers don't
offer proof..." which, as I said shows the writer knows little about
science.

Now first of all, I'm amazed that you know all 300+ of those
people.

300 PhD's without a belief in evolution? Is that supposed to be a big
number? I suspect it is far larger than that.

You make it clear you have no idea why that list was posted. Tell you
what,
to avoid behaving like a hypocrite, you might want to instead read the
original post and read why I posted that list, and what it shows (and
more
important what I never claimed it shows).

What, that someone created a list of people with fake and bad Phds?

So you know all 300+ of these people? This is important information
indeed.

Please back up this opinion and show us exactly what you know of all 300
of
these PhDs to prove they are "fake" and "bad" PhDs, rather than expecting
everyone to just take your word for it.

If you don't do this, please forgive us for concluding the obvious, that
you're lying. What was that about needing dishonesty to push a religion?
Because you're using dishonesty to push your religion of evolution.
Thanks
for being another example of the most common reaction to the religion of
evolution being shown for what it truly is when its gaping flaws and lies
are revealed: a religion masquerading as science.

You have that proven to you already. That you continue to lie about
it is proof that you are dishonest.

But you need dishonesty to push creationism.

Thanks for showing the world that yet again.

Gabriel is obviously a typical "Christian" who cherry-picks and makes
unsupported assertions to support his fantasy. What else is new?

Translation: you don't have the information, but you want your opinion to
stand as fact that this is true. Funny thing is, this is exactly what so
many people who believe in the religion of evolution do as well when asked
to show evidence. Why am I not surprised you're not going to back up this
claim about these PhDs. (a statement, not a question).

Thanks for your bigoted opinion then.

Look ate the entire web page moron. It listed numerous studies
comparing education/intelligence and their relation to religiosity.
.

User: "Kate "
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	26 Jul 2007 09:55:02 AM