| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2007 01:32:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
roninfromde@yahoo.com
Re: Mankind or Apekind?
I'm not exactly sure of your point but you have a few errors. The
most glaring to me is that anyone who understands evolution would
NEVER say "always upward". Nothing is ever finished evolving and will
continue to do so no matter what. Evolution is not "progress" and may
produce simpler results or more complex depending on circumstances.
Hello,
Even given alleged evolution is not always "upward", it appears that
evolutionists say that the final outcome is usually upward, such as
life started out as a single-celled organism, and eventually ended up
as a multicellular, extremely complex human. Since 'survival of the
fittest and 'natural selection etc, seems to be the underlying powers
behind evolution, we still run into problems.
For example, the many similarities between a human and an ape suggests
to evolutionists that humans evolved from the ape. Yet we find no
'ape-men' around today, the missing link between the apes and humans.
Why would evolution throw away the more advance 'ape-men', but still
keep the much lower apes around? Or monkeys etc? Just a fluke?
Of course those going by the Bible know why there are no 'ape-men'
around today, because their never were any. Whatever fossils
scientists propose were the 'missing links', they cannot prove
conclusively, since no living creature of that kind is around today to
see if they were just a variety in the ape family, or really were of a
higher order than apes.
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
On Nov 20, 3:16 pm, Apobetics <apobe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mankind or Apekind?
There are two different kinds of people walking around this world it
appears:
Those who are created in the image of God (mankind).
Those who are the products of evolution (apekind).
Now we know that "kinds" are identified by groups that can interbreed
and produce offspring that can interbreed within that kind. An
example is the dog kind and the cat kind as well as the ape kind. None
of these kinds can interbreed with each other or any other kind.
Mankind can also interbreed within his kind, no matter what the color
of skin, type of body hair, shape of eyes or culture. The human
genome contains all the information needed to allow this but it cannot
be mixed with other kinds because their DNA is designed and arranged
only for them.
Now the apekind argues that they are the products of blind mutational
evolution and are a separate kind breeding only within their own
kind. They claim that mankind is not their kind and they bring out
all the fossil apes, hominids and early apekinds to prove that they
are different from mankind. In fact their claim is that they are not
finished evolving and may end up something entirely different than
they are now. This is their motto, "Always evolving, always changing,
always upward- unguided!"
Remember this; mankind did not call them apekind. They call
themselves this. And they are proud of it!
6/24/6000
.
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
27 Dec 2007 02:54:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:32:14 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
James <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in
<sdv7n31a5tjpov339rmvnpgpqretdvnnjb@4ax.com>:
roninfromde@yahoo.com
Re: Mankind or Apekind?
I'm not exactly sure of your point but you have a few errors. The
most glaring to me is that anyone who understands evolution would
NEVER say "always upward". Nothing is ever finished evolving and will
continue to do so no matter what. Evolution is not "progress" and may
produce simpler results or more complex depending on circumstances.
Hello,
Even given alleged evolution is not always "upward", it appears that
evolutionists say that the final outcome is usually upward, such as
life started out as a single-celled organism, and eventually ended up
as a multicellular, extremely complex human. Since 'survival of the
fittest and 'natural selection etc, seems to be the underlying powers
behind evolution, we still run into problems.
Evolution occurs by variation and natural selection. Obviously, if the
first life-forms were pre-cellular and unicellular, new variation would
include multi-cellular organisms.
For example, the many similarities between a human and an ape suggests
to evolutionists that humans evolved from the ape. Yet we find no
'ape-men' around today, the missing link between the apes and humans.
Why would evolution throw away the more advance 'ape-men', but still
keep the much lower apes around? Or monkeys etc? Just a fluke?
Of course those going by the Bible know why there are no 'ape-men'
around today, because their never were any. Whatever fossils
scientists propose were the 'missing links', they cannot prove
conclusively, since no living creature of that kind is around today to
see if they were just a variety in the ape family, or really were of a
higher order than apes.
Your claims about what the Bible means are proven to be false by actual
evidence.
It is too bad that you belong to a religion that lies to you about
science and that you are willing to believe a doctrine that has been
proven false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
27 Dec 2007 03:49:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:54:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:32:14 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
James <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in
<sdv7n31a5tjpov339rmvnpgpqretdvnnjb@4ax.com>:
roninfromde@yahoo.com
Re: Mankind or Apekind?
I'm not exactly sure of your point but you have a few errors. The
most glaring to me is that anyone who understands evolution would
NEVER say "always upward". Nothing is ever finished evolving and will
continue to do so no matter what. Evolution is not "progress" and may
produce simpler results or more complex depending on circumstances.
Hello,
Even given alleged evolution is not always "upward", it appears that
evolutionists say that the final outcome is usually upward, such as
life started out as a single-celled organism, and eventually ended up
as a multicellular, extremely complex human. Since 'survival of the
fittest and 'natural selection etc, seems to be the underlying powers
behind evolution, we still run into problems.
Evolution occurs by variation and natural selection. Obviously, if the
first life-forms were pre-cellular and unicellular, new variation would
include multi-cellular organisms.
For example, the many similarities between a human and an ape suggests
to evolutionists that humans evolved from the ape. Yet we find no
'ape-men' around today, the missing link between the apes and humans.
Why would evolution throw away the more advance 'ape-men', but still
keep the much lower apes around? Or monkeys etc? Just a fluke?
Of course those going by the Bible know why there are no 'ape-men'
around today, because their never were any. Whatever fossils
scientists propose were the 'missing links', they cannot prove
conclusively, since no living creature of that kind is around today to
see if they were just a variety in the ape family, or really were of a
higher order than apes.
Your claims about what the Bible means are proven to be false by actual
evidence.
It is too bad that you belong to a religion that lies to you about
science and that you are willing to believe a doctrine that has been
proven false.
Suppression rather than refutation.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com
Meanwhile, it's been shown by science that no new information can
possibly be created by mutations (micro-evolution), which
completely, all by itself, rebukes the notion that macroevolution
is even remotely possible, yet alone scientific.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god
Can Mutations Produce New Information?
Actually, scientists now know that the answer is no! Dr. Lee
Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and
communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this
abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book,
Not by Chance:
In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution,
particularly mutations, and show that information is not
increased. ... But in all the reading I’ve done in the
life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added
information.17
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level
turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase
it.18
The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how
information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential
biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the
information they contain. All other biological differences follow
from that. The human genome has much more information than does
the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations
that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little
at a time [emphasis added].19
Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that
many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have now come to.
Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary
process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:
The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large
evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if
there are enough of them. But if these events all lose
information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the
NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there
are. 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 in volume ... . Not
even one mutation has been observed that adds a little
information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not
the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory
demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even
one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to
find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.
We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory
[emphasis added].20
This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and
professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and
Technology. In answering the question, "Can new information
originate through mutations?" he said:
This idea is central in representations of evolution, but
mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There
can be no increase in information, and in general the results are
injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot
arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative)
information [emphasis added].21
So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated as
mechanisms to produce the information and design of living
systems, then another source must be found.
But there are even more basic problems for those who reject the
Creator God as the source of information.
Praise the Lord!
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
27 Dec 2007 04:03:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:49:56 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ba78n3t0u7l8gkuq12rk1b8u87oi0vsusg@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:54:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:32:14 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
James <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in
<sdv7n31a5tjpov339rmvnpgpqretdvnnjb@4ax.com>:
roninfromde@yahoo.com
Re: Mankind or Apekind?
I'm not exactly sure of your point but you have a few errors. The
most glaring to me is that anyone who understands evolution would
NEVER say "always upward". Nothing is ever finished evolving and will
continue to do so no matter what. Evolution is not "progress" and may
produce simpler results or more complex depending on circumstances.
Hello,
Even given alleged evolution is not always "upward", it appears that
evolutionists say that the final outcome is usually upward, such as
life started out as a single-celled organism, and eventually ended up
as a multicellular, extremely complex human. Since 'survival of the
fittest and 'natural selection etc, seems to be the underlying powers
behind evolution, we still run into problems.
Evolution occurs by variation and natural selection. Obviously, if the
first life-forms were pre-cellular and unicellular, new variation would
include multi-cellular organisms.
For example, the many similarities between a human and an ape suggests
to evolutionists that humans evolved from the ape. Yet we find no
'ape-men' around today, the missing link between the apes and humans.
Why would evolution throw away the more advance 'ape-men', but still
keep the much lower apes around? Or monkeys etc? Just a fluke?
Of course those going by the Bible know why there are no 'ape-men'
around today, because their never were any. Whatever fossils
scientists propose were the 'missing links', they cannot prove
conclusively, since no living creature of that kind is around today to
see if they were just a variety in the ape family, or really were of a
higher order than apes.
Your claims about what the Bible means are proven to be false by actual
evidence.
It is too bad that you belong to a religion that lies to you about
science and that you are willing to believe a doctrine that has been
proven false.
Suppression rather than refutation.
Not even close.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com
Meanwhile, it's been shown by science that no new information can
possibly be created by mutations (micro-evolution), which
completely, all by itself, rebukes the notion that macroevolution
is even remotely possible, yet alone scientific.
Your claim is false. Once again, you believe the lies that you are told
by people who make their money telling religious lies.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god
Can Mutations Produce New Information?
Actually, scientists now know that the answer is no! Dr. Lee
Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and
communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this
abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book,
Not by Chance:
What utter rubbish. Notice that Spetner didn't actually do any science
and did not write a paper for a peer reviewed journal. He made a bunch
of claims that people who have intentionally remained ignorant will not
be able to recognize as lies.
In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution,
particularly mutations, and show that information is not
increased. ... But in all the reading I’ve done in the
life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added
information.17
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level
turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase
it.18
The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how
information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential
biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the
information they contain. All other biological differences follow
from that. The human genome has much more information than does
the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations
that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little
at a time [emphasis added].19
Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that
many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have now come to.
Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary
process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:
The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large
evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if
there are enough of them. But if these events all lose
information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the
NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there
are. 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 in volume ... . Not
even one mutation has been observed that adds a little
information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not
the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory
demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even
one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to
find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.
We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory
[emphasis added].20
This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and
professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and
Technology. In answering the question, "Can new information
originate through mutations?" he said:
This idea is central in representations of evolution, but
mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There
can be no increase in information, and in general the results are
injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot
arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative)
information [emphasis added].21
So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated as
mechanisms to produce the information and design of living
systems, then another source must be found.
But there are even more basic problems for those who reject the
Creator God as the source of information.
Praise the Lord!
gabriel
You are a victim of religious liars. You then repeat their lies and mock
the god you claim to worship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
27 Dec 2007 06:11:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:03:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:49:56 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ba78n3t0u7l8gkuq12rk1b8u87oi0vsusg@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:54:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:32:14 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
James <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in
<sdv7n31a5tjpov339rmvnpgpqretdvnnjb@4ax.com>:
roninfromde@yahoo.com
Re: Mankind or Apekind?
I'm not exactly sure of your point but you have a few errors. The
most glaring to me is that anyone who understands evolution would
NEVER say "always upward". Nothing is ever finished evolving and will
continue to do so no matter what. Evolution is not "progress" and may
produce simpler results or more complex depending on circumstances.
Hello,
Even given alleged evolution is not always "upward", it appears that
evolutionists say that the final outcome is usually upward, such as
life started out as a single-celled organism, and eventually ended up
as a multicellular, extremely complex human. Since 'survival of the
fittest and 'natural selection etc, seems to be the underlying powers
behind evolution, we still run into problems.
Evolution occurs by variation and natural selection. Obviously, if the
first life-forms were pre-cellular and unicellular, new variation would
include multi-cellular organisms.
For example, the many similarities between a human and an ape suggests
to evolutionists that humans evolved from the ape. Yet we find no
'ape-men' around today, the missing link between the apes and humans.
Why would evolution throw away the more advance 'ape-men', but still
keep the much lower apes around? Or monkeys etc? Just a fluke?
Of course those going by the Bible know why there are no 'ape-men'
around today, because their never were any. Whatever fossils
scientists propose were the 'missing links', they cannot prove
conclusively, since no living creature of that kind is around today to
see if they were just a variety in the ape family, or really were of a
higher order than apes.
Your claims about what the Bible means are proven to be false by actual
evidence.
It is too bad that you belong to a religion that lies to you about
science and that you are willing to believe a doctrine that has been
proven false.
Suppression rather than refutation.
Not even close.
Tell that to every scientist that gets blacklisted for even
daring to mention anything that contradicts evolution.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com
Meanwhile, it's been shown by science that no new information can
possibly be created by mutations (micro-evolution), which
completely, all by itself, rebukes the notion that macroevolution
is even remotely possible, yet alone scientific.
Your claim is false.
By your opinion? You'll have to better than that.
Once again, you believe the lies that you are told
by people who make their money telling religious lies.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god
Can Mutations Produce New Information?
Actually, scientists now know that the answer is no! Dr. Lee
Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and
communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this
abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book,
Not by Chance:
What utter rubbish. Notice that Spetner didn't actually do any science
and did not write a paper for a peer reviewed journal.
Papers that do not support evolution will not even get published.
They refuse to publish such papers so that others like you can
come along and say they were never reviewed. So the articles are
there for all to see. They are free to review it all they want.
But what will they do? Just what you do: offer their scientific
opinion of "What utter rubbish".
He made a bunch
of claims that people who have intentionally remained ignorant will not
be able to recognize as lies.
So then I take it you are completely versed in exactly how they
are lies. Please, help us with actual details rather than just
giving your unsupported opinion, because so far, as is typical of
evolutionists, that's all you've given.
gabriel
In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution,
particularly mutations, and show that information is not
increased. ... But in all the reading I’ve done in the
life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added
information.17
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level
turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase
it.18
The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how
information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential
biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the
information they contain. All other biological differences follow
from that. The human genome has much more information than does
the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations
that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little
at a time [emphasis added].19
Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that
many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have now come to.
Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary
process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:
The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large
evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if
there are enough of them. But if these events all lose
information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the
NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there
are. 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 in volume ... . Not
even one mutation has been observed that adds a little
information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not
the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory
demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even
one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to
find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.
We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory
[emphasis added].20
This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and
professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and
Technology. In answering the question, "Can new information
originate through mutations?" he said:
This idea is central in representations of evolution, but
mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There
can be no increase in information, and in general the results are
injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot
arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative)
information [emphasis added].21
So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated as
mechanisms to produce the information and design of living
systems, then another source must be found.
But there are even more basic problems for those who reject the
Creator God as the source of information.
Praise the Lord!
gabriel
You are a victim of religious liars. You then repeat their lies and mock
the god you claim to worship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
27 Dec 2007 06:18:35 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:11:03 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<oef8n3hcrgeolblffndmnrkpuljjbll430@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:03:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:49:56 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ba78n3t0u7l8gkuq12rk1b8u87oi0vsusg@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:54:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:32:14 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
James <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in
<sdv7n31a5tjpov339rmvnpgpqretdvnnjb@4ax.com>:
roninfromde@yahoo.com
Re: Mankind or Apekind?
I'm not exactly sure of your point but you have a few errors. The
most glaring to me is that anyone who understands evolution would
NEVER say "always upward". Nothing is ever finished evolving and will
continue to do so no matter what. Evolution is not "progress" and may
produce simpler results or more complex depending on circumstances.
Hello,
Even given alleged evolution is not always "upward", it appears that
evolutionists say that the final outcome is usually upward, such as
life started out as a single-celled organism, and eventually ended up
as a multicellular, extremely complex human. Since 'survival of the
fittest and 'natural selection etc, seems to be the underlying powers
behind evolution, we still run into problems.
Evolution occurs by variation and natural selection. Obviously, if the
first life-forms were pre-cellular and unicellular, new variation would
include multi-cellular organisms.
For example, the many similarities between a human and an ape suggests
to evolutionists that humans evolved from the ape. Yet we find no
'ape-men' around today, the missing link between the apes and humans.
Why would evolution throw away the more advance 'ape-men', but still
keep the much lower apes around? Or monkeys etc? Just a fluke?
Of course those going by the Bible know why there are no 'ape-men'
around today, because their never were any. Whatever fossils
scientists propose were the 'missing links', they cannot prove
conclusively, since no living creature of that kind is around today to
see if they were just a variety in the ape family, or really were of a
higher order than apes.
Your claims about what the Bible means are proven to be false by actual
evidence.
It is too bad that you belong to a religion that lies to you about
science and that you are willing to believe a doctrine that has been
proven false.
Suppression rather than refutation.
Not even close.
Tell that to every scientist that gets blacklisted for even
daring to mention anything that contradicts evolution.
No such scientists have ever been blacklisted in that manner. I am
certain that you should have known that fact before you defamed science
in general. That is just one more of the lies that the science haters
tell to excuse their frauds.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com
Meanwhile, it's been shown by science that no new information can
possibly be created by mutations (micro-evolution), which
completely, all by itself, rebukes the notion that macroevolution
is even remotely possible, yet alone scientific.
Your claim is false.
By your opinion? You'll have to better than that.
False, by objective evidence. You are lying.
Once again, you believe the lies that you are told
by people who make their money telling religious lies.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god
Can Mutations Produce New Information?
Actually, scientists now know that the answer is no! Dr. Lee
Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and
communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this
abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book,
Not by Chance:
What utter rubbish. Notice that Spetner didn't actually do any science
and did not write a paper for a peer reviewed journal.
Papers that do not support evolution will not even get published.
Any good scientific paper will get published. If those that reject
evolution are not published it is because they don't contain proper
science.
They refuse to publish such papers so that others like you can
come along and say they were never reviewed. So the articles are
there for all to see. They are free to review it all they want.
But what will they do? Just what you do: offer their scientific
opinion of "What utter rubbish".
The rubbish comes from the religious liars who will say anything to deny
the facts about evolution.
He made a bunch
of claims that people who have intentionally remained ignorant will not
be able to recognize as lies.
So then I take it you are completely versed in exactly how they
are lies. Please, help us with actual details rather than just
giving your unsupported opinion, because so far, as is typical of
evolutionists, that's all you've given.
You are the one who makes absolutely false defamatory comments without a
shred of evidence and then have the gall to try to claim I don't support
my claims?
I have no idea if you have a religion, but you certainly don't act like
any Christian was taught to act. Go away. Start learning something about
science.
gabriel
--
"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: Mankind or Apekind? |
27 Dec 2007 09:26:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:18:35 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:11:03 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<oef8n3hcrgeolblffndmnrkpuljjbll430@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:03:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:49:56 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ba78n3t0u7l8gkuq12rk1b8u87oi0vsusg@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:54:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:32:14 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
James <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in
<sdv7n31a5tjpov339rmvnpgpqretdvnnjb@4ax.com>:
roninfromde@yahoo.com
Re: Mankind or Apekind?
I'm not exactly sure of your point but you have a few errors. The
most glaring to me is that anyone who understands evolution would
NEVER say "always upward". Nothing is ever finished evolving and will
continue to do so no matter what. Evolution is not "progress" and may
produce simpler results or more complex depending on circumstances.
Hello,
Even given alleged evolution is not always "upward", it appears that
evolutionists say that the final outcome is usually upward, such as
life started out as a single-celled organism, and eventually ended up
as a multicellular, extremely complex human. Since 'survival of the
fittest and 'natural selection etc, seems to be the underlying powers
behind evolution, we still run into problems.
Evolution occurs by variation and natural selection. Obviously, if the
first life-forms were pre-cellular and unicellular, new variation would
include multi-cellular organisms.
For example, the many similarities between a human and an ape suggests
to evolutionists that humans evolved from the ape. Yet we find no
'ape-men' around today, the missing link between the apes and humans.
Why would evolution throw away the more advance 'ape-men', but still
keep the much lower apes around? Or monkeys etc? Just a fluke?
Of course those going by the Bible know why there are no 'ape-men'
around today, because their never were any. Whatever fossils
scientists propose were the 'missing links', they cannot prove
conclusively, since no living creature of that kind is around today to
see if they were just a variety in the ape family, or really were of a
higher order than apes.
Your claims about what the Bible means are proven to be false by actual
evidence.
It is too bad that you belong to a religion that lies to you about
science and that you are willing to believe a doctrine that has been
proven false.
Suppression rather than refutation.
Not even close.
Tell that to every scientist that gets blacklisted for even
daring to mention anything that contradicts evolution.
No such scientists have ever been blacklisted in that manner.
Go check out www.ExpelledTheMove.com and look at a few of the
trailers. You'll see real interviews from people who've done
exactly that and have been blacklisted.
Or check here as well for many other references:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/congressional_report_exposes_f.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N85D4VJ6ZZFR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_on_Evolution
"Across America, the freedom of scientists, teachers, and
students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by
what can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists. These
self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a
malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees
with them."
And that's only a few references at the top of the list when
doing a search on "scientist evolution blacklisted" in google.
So yes, they are being blacklisted in _exactly_ this manner.
Why is it you act like it doesn't happen when it's so easy to see
that it does?
I am
certain that you should have known that fact before you defamed science
in general. That is just one more of the lies that the science haters
tell to excuse their frauds.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com
Meanwhile, it's been shown by science that no new information can
possibly be created by mutations (micro-evolution), which
completely, all by itself, rebukes the notion that macroevolution
is even remotely possible, yet alone scientific.
Your claim is false.
By your opinion? You'll have to better than that.
False, by objective evidence. You are lying.
And yet again you don't show any of this supposed evidence. So
again, so far it's just your opinion you offer. Please provide
this evidence you keep alluding to but have yet to show.
Once again, you believe the lies that you are told
by people who make their money telling religious lies.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god
Can Mutations Produce New Information?
Actually, scientists now know that the answer is no! Dr. Lee
Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and
communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this
abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book,
Not by Chance:
What utter rubbish. Notice that Spetner didn't actually do any science
and did not write a paper for a peer reviewed journal.
Papers that do not support evolution will not even get published.
Any good scientific paper will get published.
Notice how you qualified your statement with the word "good". So
they just label any scientific paper that contradicts evolution,
or even hints at intelligent design as not "good", and they don't
get published.
If those that reject
evolution are not published it is because they don't contain proper
science.
Turns out anything that points out the severe flaws evolution
gets dubbed as not "good" science. :-(
They refuse to publish such papers so that others like you can
come along and say they were never reviewed. So the articles are
there for all to see. They are free to review it all they want.
But what will they do? Just what you do: offer their scientific
opinion of "What utter rubbish".
The rubbish comes from the religious liars who will say anything to deny
the facts about evolution.
He made a bunch
of claims that people who have intentionally remained ignorant will not
be able to recognize as lies.
So then I take it you are completely versed in exactly how they
are lies. Please, help us with actual details rather than just
giving your unsupported opinion, because so far, as is typical of
evolutionists, that's all you've given.
You are the one who makes absolutely false defamatory comments without a
shred of evidence and then have the gall to try to claim I don't support
my claims?
Without a shred of evidence? I've shown you much evidence. Your
refusal to look at it does not equate to it not existing. Not to
mention you are being a hypocrite because you've yet to back up a
single thing you say, and have told several lies already. :-(
So again, since you claimed to know the details about this exact
article, I ask again for you to back up your claims: please give
us details beyond just your opinion on why the article I brought
to your attention is so wrong.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god
Meanwhile, please take a look at the ample evidence of scientists
being blacklisted as well. Thank you.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
27 Dec 2007 10:09:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:26:08 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<43q8n3tfb2g23anlr98c94p78laich60qv@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:18:35 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:11:03 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<oef8n3hcrgeolblffndmnrkpuljjbll430@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:03:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:49:56 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ba78n3t0u7l8gkuq12rk1b8u87oi0vsusg@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:54:23 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:32:14 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
James <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in
<sdv7n31a5tjpov339rmvnpgpqretdvnnjb@4ax.com>:
roninfromde@yahoo.com
Re: Mankind or Apekind?
I'm not exactly sure of your point but you have a few errors. The
most glaring to me is that anyone who understands evolution would
NEVER say "always upward". Nothing is ever finished evolving and will
continue to do so no matter what. Evolution is not "progress" and may
produce simpler results or more complex depending on circumstances.
Hello,
Even given alleged evolution is not always "upward", it appears that
evolutionists say that the final outcome is usually upward, such as
life started out as a single-celled organism, and eventually ended up
as a multicellular, extremely complex human. Since 'survival of the
fittest and 'natural selection etc, seems to be the underlying powers
behind evolution, we still run into problems.
Evolution occurs by variation and natural selection. Obviously, if the
first life-forms were pre-cellular and unicellular, new variation would
include multi-cellular organisms.
For example, the many similarities between a human and an ape suggests
to evolutionists that humans evolved from the ape. Yet we find no
'ape-men' around today, the missing link between the apes and humans.
Why would evolution throw away the more advance 'ape-men', but still
keep the much lower apes around? Or monkeys etc? Just a fluke?
Of course those going by the Bible know why there are no 'ape-men'
around today, because their never were any. Whatever fossils
scientists propose were the 'missing links', they cannot prove
conclusively, since no living creature of that kind is around today to
see if they were just a variety in the ape family, or really were of a
higher order than apes.
Your claims about what the Bible means are proven to be false by actual
evidence.
It is too bad that you belong to a religion that lies to you about
science and that you are willing to believe a doctrine that has been
proven false.
Suppression rather than refutation.
Not even close.
Tell that to every scientist that gets blacklisted for even
daring to mention anything that contradicts evolution.
No such scientists have ever been blacklisted in that manner.
Go check out www.ExpelledTheMove.com and look at a few of the
trailers. You'll see real interviews from people who've done
exactly that and have been blacklisted.
So you claim. Tell me the name and the circumstances. I don't believe
you and I see no reason to waste my time reading your dishonest
propaganda sites. If I want a propaganda movie, I'll watch the best
"Triumph of the Will".
Or check here as well for many other references:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
We know they lie.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/congressional_report_exposes_f.html
More unreliable claims.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N85D4VJ6ZZFR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_on_Evolution
"Across America, the freedom of scientists, teachers, and
students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by
what can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists. These
self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a
malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees
with them."
Bull. Absolute lies by religious enemies of knowledge.
And that's only a few references at the top of the list when
doing a search on "scientist evolution blacklisted" in google.
So yes, they are being blacklisted in _exactly_ this manner.
Liar.
Why is it you act like it doesn't happen when it's so easy to see
that it does?
It does not. Your claims are false. You cannot name a single person who
was blackballed for advocating a scientific alternative to evolution.
You know that.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
27 Dec 2007 11:39:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:09:24 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
[ .. ]
So you claim. Tell me the name and the circumstances.
Click your left mouse-button. It's right there when you're done
trying to suppress it.
We know they lie.
[ .. ]
More unreliable claims.
[ .. ]
Bull. Absolute lies by religious enemies of knowledge.
[ .. ]
Liar.
All insult and intimidation, no substance.
It's a shame, but a great many evolutionists behave exactly like
this. They will scream and kick and insult, hoping the truth will
go away.
I beseech others to stop giving in to the dishonesty of
evolutionists like this, and not be swayed with their tactics of
intimidation and deflection. Young minds are at stake of current
and future generations to keep these sorts of people from making
our young people as deceived and as hateful as they are.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mankind or Apekind? |
28 Dec 2007 09:58:24 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:39:21 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<u329n3p2ndt6o9l1c5c6r1gkjojub0s0jd@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:09:24 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
[ .. ]
So you claim. Tell me the name and the circumstances.
Click your left mouse-button. It's right there when you're done
trying to suppress it.
There is something at <http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php>, but I
don't see any names named, nor any evidence that this is anything but
another lying reactionary smear. I asked for names and circumstances.
You have demonstrated that you cannot offer any. Stop wasting our time
until you provide actual names and then we can find out what Ben Stein
and the rest of the reactionaries are lying about.
We know they lie.
[ .. ]
More unreliable claims.
[ .. ]
Bull. Absolute lies by religious enemies of knowledge.
[ .. ]
Liar.
All insult and intimidation, no substance.
You offered no substance, I critiqued the liars you referred to. I make
no effort to intimidate as you can see.
It's a shame, but a great many evolutionists behave exactly like
this. They will scream and kick and insult, hoping the truth will
go away.
The truth is that the reactionaries and religious zealots are the liars
about science and that the loudest critics of science are the ones who
are most ignorant of it. Their opinion is foolish.
I beseech others to stop giving in to the dishonesty of
evolutionists like this, and not be swayed with their tactics of
intimidation and deflection. Young minds are at stake of current
and future generations to keep these sorts of people from making
our young people as deceived and as hateful as they are.
Yes, that is why you are willing to tell any lie about the false
doctrines that you teach in your religion, because you know that your
doctrines are false and that others know it.
Clearly, you worship a very weak, worthless god since you need to lie on
his behalf.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
