Hi Jd,

"Jd" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:tgr2a3dpgm4qs4m1b56esk9892pjfeh40q@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

Do not want to identify the incompetent school you attended? How about
admitting you slept through basic biology and do not have a clue what you
are talking about?

Let's see...... you can't refute Gabriel so you launch ad hominem
assaults.

Unfortunately, it's a very common tactic for those who no longer have a leg
to stand on. It's a losing situation as they just ignore the obvious and
launch into personal attacks. So you just have to back up and let them stew
in their own anger and intent on worshipping science fiction on this topic,
and hope they open their eyes at some point.

James Powell wrote:

Do not want to identify the incompetent school you attended? How about
admitting you slept through basic biology and do not have a clue what you
are talking about?

Let's see...... you can't refute Gabriel so you launch ad hominem assaults.

My only request would be that you find sneaky ways to do this so as to not bore Gabriel and myself
with the same ole' ~same ole.

Jd

"Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:wa_hi.259833$p47.8301@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Hi James
"James Powell" <some...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:hImdnYbqIdzUjBXbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...

[ .. ]
Get yourself a modern textbook on evolutionary theory. Go to
www.talkorigins.org.

Textbooks have been shown to still have lies that haeckel's embryo's are
facts, even 140+ years after the fact they've been shown to be faked by
science. (You are aware of this, I assume?) Sorry, you need to go
somewhere else besides textbooks to make sure you're not being lied to by
science when it comes to the big bang and evolutionary religious claims.

Did you miss the modifier MODERN? Did you even look at Talk Origins? You are
the one buying into lies promulgated by pseudoscientists and nonscientists.

I am well aware of most of the modern theories and evidence available, more
so in biology than cosmology.

As for Haeckel, are you quoting Strobel, et al?

"While Strobel's book apparently passes on the information that Haeckel
fudged his early figures, it apparently is less forthcoming about the broad
result that holds whether Haeckel was inaccurate at the outset or not. Nor
did Strobel do the work that demonstrated that there were problems in
Haeckel's early figures. Strobel and other antievolutionists rely upon the
evolutionists to figure out technical stuff like that. All the
antievolutionists seem to be good for in this regard is to shrilly repeat
their selective take on the critique made by real biologists. In doing so,
the big picture can be easily overlooked by those who rely on
antievolutionists as a source of information. Antievolutionists are, in this
view, like malicious gossips who do nothing of worth on their own, but
rather cast what information they hear in the most damaging possible terms.
Their aim is not to inform, but to proselytize." Wesley R. Elsberryhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/feb05.html

If you had half a brain, you wouldn't make such stupid comments. It is
not our job to supply the education you should have received in a
competent school.

[ .. ]

Do not want to identify the incompetent school you attended? How about
admitting you slept through basic biology and do not have a clue what you
are talking about?

Because the newbie fundie spouting the same old garbage becomes tiresome.
Try doing some research. All of your objections have been dealt with ad
nauseum over the years since the Usenet started.

If you're interested in the truth, you might want to start here.

As stated, these poseurs have already been dealt with ad nauseum. Try to
come up with something original.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,
2004

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=384

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Md.: Adler &
Adler, 1986.

An oldie that just gets moldier.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution.
Nashville: Word, 1998.

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=58

Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity
Press, second edition. 1993.

You are kidding me, right?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/resources/165252685546.asp

Wells, Jonathan. Icons of Evolution. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000.

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/

And that's just for starters. If not, continue ignoring the scientific
rejections all around you and continue to say what you want. Good luck.

Try to come back with a solid critique as to why these criticisms of the
above works are not valid. Make sure you back it with scientific evidence.

I would be happy if you come back with a basic understanding of what you are
talking about. Do some homework Junior.

Hi James"James Powell" <some...@anywhere.com> wrote in message

news:hImdnYbqIdzUjBXbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...

[ .. ]
Get yourself a modern textbook on evolutionary theory. Go to
www.talkorigins.org.

Textbooks have been shown to still have lies that haeckel's embryo's are
facts, even 140+ years after the fact they've been shown to be faked by
science. (You are aware of this, I assume?)

Sorry, you need to go somewhere
else besides textbooks to make sure you're not being lied to by science when
it comes to the big bang and evolutionary religious claims.

Hi John,

"John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:QHRhi.278$Np2.45@trnddc07...

[ .. ]
Yes, there is no scientific "proof" for that any more than there is
absoslute scientific for gravity

There's proof that something we call "gravity" exists. Proof of where
gravity came from or why it's even there is a different matter. But some
people like to act like both issues are just as easy to deal with, let alone
compare them in ease to the creation of life from lifelessness, and
macro-evolution, and the big bang, with is infinitely more complex by
comparison.

- everywhere, and under all situations.
There is, however, a VAST amount of facts and evidence

And yet you point out none of this vast amount of facts and evidence. Should
have been trivial to do if there's so much of it. Why do you expect everyone
to just take your word for all this vast amount of facts and evidence? Seems
almost convenient that we cannot show you how they're not really facts and
evidence of what you think, since you don't even point them out.

that lead rational and sane men to the conclusion that abiogensis and
evolution happened.

And what is the definition of a rational and sane man? According to you, it
must be someone who says things like:

What you insane, and uneducated, assholes bellow is of no concern

Sorry, but you show no credibility that you possess anything other than
hatred for those who do not believe in your religion of evolution and the
big bang. If anything, you hurt the belief in your religion by showing yet
another example of the mentality of those who follow it wholeheartedly.

But, for the edification of yourself if you ever try to get more objective,
or others who read this and are not sure of it all, it's always worth
pointing out that most of the time, when people are faced with someone who
disagrees with their religion of evolution and the big bang, that immature
hostility is almost always a part of their reaction, if not the only part in
some cases.

Ask yourself why you get so upset if you're so sure you're right. The Bible
can tell us more.

John 3:19-20
19 And this is the condemnation, that
light is come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because
their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth
the light, neither cometh to the light,
lest his deeds should be reproved.

I wish you well!

This is the common deception they throw out there: that anything suddenly
becomes possible just because vast amounts of time pass.

No, not "anything". Just the evolution of living things.

Oh, not just the creation of ~non~ living things from non-living matter.
That's too hard.

Just the creation of infinitely more complex, conscious,
intelligent ~living~ things from nonliving matter,

which would be even harder.

We're talking about the creation of life from lifelessness.

Not the macro-evolution of life once it's been created (which you have no conclusive
proof for either, just wishful thinking)

Creation of life from lifeless matter is not possible,

it's not been shown to be possible,

and it doesn't just suddenly magically become possible because billions of years pass by.

But then again, macro-evolution has no proof whatsoever either.

Just wishful thinking from fossils that won't even cooperate,

which is part of the reason fossils to this day continue to get faked,

and why we don't even have any sign at all of these intermediate forms that must have surely existed,

if not still exist, of crosses between different species.

Scientists realize the dilemma,

and true to the form ~on this topic~ of
trying to remain blind, and blind everyone right along with them, rather
than accept the truth

"Gould and a colleague proposed a new hypothesis, called
"punctuated equilibrium," in a desperate bid to explain away the fossil
gaps. They suggested that radically new species somehow managed to evelop
rapidly among isolated populations, conveniently leaving behind no fossils
to document the process. When these new creatures rejoined the larger,
central populations, this resulted in the preserving of fossils that
suggested the sudden appearance of new species."
[Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial]

If you leave your garage empty and locked, a new mercedes will not
suddenly
materialize next week, next month, next year, or next century. And 13
billion years from now, still no new car.

That's because cars are not living things.

So you're claiming it's easier to create a ~living~ thing from lifelessness,
than another non-living thing from lifelessness?!

Wow. Just wow. Read again
what you're claiming. I want to go out and get some "create living things
from non-living things" playsets for some kids at school.

All this time
they've only had "create non-living things from non-living things" playsets.
I'm sure they'd like yours better. Where can they get it?

To you it's easier to create life from lifelessness than a mere lifeless
man-made thing. I think you might have it backwards on what's really easier.

Life doesn't get created from lifelessness in nature.

Says who? You should learn about physics, chemistry and biology first,
before making such an idiotic assertion.

Idiotic assertion? You mean like the assertion that it's easier to create
~living~ things from non-living matter than it is to create other non-living
things from non living matter?

It's no wonder you start resorting to insults. What you claim is illogical
at best.

Didn't happen over the
past month, year, decade, century, or the thousands of years we've seen.
It's not suddenly going to happen just because 13 billion years go by.

But it did.

You have no proof of this.

Where's your proof that life can be created by nothing but
lifeless matter naturally?

And your "god" is *all* "magic". It poofed itself into existence (or
it always existed...), then it poofed out the whole universe, and it
poofed out humans. That's absurd.

No, what's absurd is the assertion that it's easier to create ~life~ from
lifelessness, by randomn chance,

It makes a ton more sense that God, who is all-powerful, created humans and
the universe than that life was created from lifelessness,

and all the order of the universe and life was created by what started out as some
inexplicably guessed big bang. Go blow something up in your garage, and see
if it eventually results in life forms that evolve into humans.

Progress past your own high school and college textbooks: they've been shown
to still be propagating the lies about evolution.