| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IKnowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
02 Jan 2004 11:37:34 AM |
| Object: |
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
Some leading feather experts* have admitted that creationists were right
to point out the futility of scales evolving into feathers. But they are
unwilling to admit that the problem is with the evolutionary religion
itself, so they have proposed another supposition(with no evidence, but
that should surprise no one). They described it as "evo-devo":
"Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a series
of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new
mechanisim of growth."
However, any evidence of "developmental novelty" is better explained as a
creation of information in birds that is not found in any scale baring
reptiles. In fact, feathers develop under the control of two genes; one
which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this
proliferation and promotes cell differentiation(i.e. into specialzed
types), and these genes operate in precise sequence. This is an extra
layer of complexity. And the researchers still admit there is a problem
explaining how a loose downy feather could "evo-devo" into a rigid feather
with its elabotate system of hooks and ridges.
*Prum, R. and Brush, A., "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"
Scientific American 288(3): 60-69, March 2003
*Matthews, M., Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot;
Need for a "new paradigm" in bird evolution, 12 March 2003
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie. God, the
Creator, made birds exactly as we see them today with complicated feathers
that had to be fully functional from the start. Can you imagine a lizard
with scales crouching on a rock and thinking in his wee little mind " I
need to fly in the air so I had better turn these non-flying scales into
feathers by evo-devo."
.
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 07:08:29 PM |
|
|
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie.
That's telling them, IKnow. Everyone knows that the only kind of
evolution that happens is when goats copulate in front of reeds and
evolve stripes.
Those evolutionary scientists don't know anything. They'll never
discover the DNA sequences that prove bats are really birds, whales
are really fish, rabbits chew their cud, insects have four legs,
dragons can breathe fire, and freshwater fish can survive in saltwater
for forty days. But we know the truth, for it is written in God's
word!
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 01:34:51 PM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0201040937340001@pm8-25.kalama.com...
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
Some leading feather experts* have admitted that creationists were right
to point out the futility of scales evolving into feathers. But they are
unwilling to admit that the problem is with the evolutionary religion
itself, so they have proposed another supposition(with no evidence, but
that should surprise no one). They described it as "evo-devo":
"Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a series
of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new
mechanisim of growth."
However, any evidence of "developmental novelty" is better explained as a
creation of information in birds that is not found in any scale baring
reptiles. In fact, feathers develop under the control of two genes; one
which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this
proliferation and promotes cell differentiation(i.e. into specialzed
types), and these genes operate in precise sequence. This is an extra
layer of complexity. And the researchers still admit there is a problem
explaining how a loose downy feather could "evo-devo" into a rigid feather
with its elabotate system of hooks and ridges.
*Prum, R. and Brush, A., "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"
Scientific American 288(3): 60-69, March 2003
*Matthews, M., Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot;
Need for a "new paradigm" in bird evolution, 12 March 2003
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie. God, the
Creator, made birds exactly as we see them today with complicated feathers
that had to be fully functional from the start. Can you imagine a lizard
with scales crouching on a rock and thinking in his wee little mind " I
need to fly in the air so I had better turn these non-flying scales into
feathers by evo-devo."
Funny, I read that same issue and got a totally different take on it. It
looks to me that, unlike religions, research continues in science. You're
upset that they don't have all the answers. Such is the nature of science.
The scientist points to a pile of evidence and asks what conclusions can be
made if we follow this? The creationists points to the Bible and asks,
"Here's the conclusion; what evidence can we single out to support it?"
You are aware, after all the debate in this N.G., that your lizard on the
rock analogy is actually Lamarckism not natural selection? I always make
sure to clear this up with my students and use the works of Jean Lamarck to
illustrate how scientific theories develop, or evolve, if you will. Did you
miss out on that lesson or are you just hoping this would confuse all of us?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 04:27:48 PM |
|
|
In article <vJjJb.920737$9l5.401809@pd7tw2no>, "R Brown"
<brown@hotmail.com> wrote:
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0201040937340001@pm8-25.kalama.com...
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
Some leading feather experts* have admitted that creationists were right
to point out the futility of scales evolving into feathers. But they are
unwilling to admit that the problem is with the evolutionary religion
itself, so they have proposed another supposition(with no evidence, but
that should surprise no one). They described it as "evo-devo":
"Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a series
of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new
mechanisim of growth."
However, any evidence of "developmental novelty" is better explained as a
creation of information in birds that is not found in any scale baring
reptiles. In fact, feathers develop under the control of two genes; one
which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this
proliferation and promotes cell differentiation(i.e. into specialzed
types), and these genes operate in precise sequence. This is an extra
layer of complexity. And the researchers still admit there is a problem
explaining how a loose downy feather could "evo-devo" into a rigid feather
with its elabotate system of hooks and ridges.
*Prum, R. and Brush, A., "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"
Scientific American 288(3): 60-69, March 2003
*Matthews, M., Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot;
Need for a "new paradigm" in bird evolution, 12 March 2003
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie. God, the
Creator, made birds exactly as we see them today with complicated feathers
that had to be fully functional from the start. Can you imagine a lizard
with scales crouching on a rock and thinking in his wee little mind " I
need to fly in the air so I had better turn these non-flying scales into
feathers by evo-devo."
Funny, I read that same issue and got a totally different take on it. It
looks to me that, unlike religions, research continues in science.
And understanding of Scriputure continues to be understood as well.
You're
upset that they don't have all the answers. Such is the nature of science.
The scientist points to a pile of evidence and asks what conclusions can be
made if we follow this?
But of course, the athiest scientist concludes that tomatoe plants and
girafes have a common ancestor, but never a common Creator.
The creationists points to the Bible and asks,
"Here's the conclusion; what evidence can we single out to support it?"
No, the Scripture posits a scientific theory, which has held up under the
evidence quite nicely, thank you.
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "R Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 05:50:00 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0201041727480001@192.168.1.55...
In article <vJjJb.920737$9l5.401809@pd7tw2no>, "R Brown"
<brown@hotmail.com> wrote:
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0201040937340001@pm8-25.kalama.com...
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
Some leading feather experts* have admitted that creationists were
right
to point out the futility of scales evolving into feathers. But they
are
unwilling to admit that the problem is with the evolutionary religion
itself, so they have proposed another supposition(with no evidence,
but
that should surprise no one). They described it as "evo-devo":
"Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a
series
of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new
mechanisim of growth."
However, any evidence of "developmental novelty" is better explained
as a
creation of information in birds that is not found in any scale baring
reptiles. In fact, feathers develop under the control of two genes;
one
which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this
proliferation and promotes cell differentiation(i.e. into specialzed
types), and these genes operate in precise sequence. This is an extra
layer of complexity. And the researchers still admit there is a
problem
explaining how a loose downy feather could "evo-devo" into a rigid
feather
with its elabotate system of hooks and ridges.
*Prum, R. and Brush, A., "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"
Scientific American 288(3): 60-69, March 2003
*Matthews, M., Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore
spot;
Need for a "new paradigm" in bird evolution, 12 March 2003
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie. God, the
Creator, made birds exactly as we see them today with complicated
feathers
that had to be fully functional from the start. Can you imagine a
lizard
with scales crouching on a rock and thinking in his wee little mind "
I
need to fly in the air so I had better turn these non-flying scales
into
feathers by evo-devo."
Funny, I read that same issue and got a totally different take on it. It
looks to me that, unlike religions, research continues in science.
And understanding of Scriputure continues to be understood as well.
You're
upset that they don't have all the answers. Such is the nature of
science.
The scientist points to a pile of evidence and asks what conclusions can
be
made if we follow this?
But of course, the athiest scientist concludes that tomatoe plants and
girafes have a common ancestor, but never a common Creator.
The creationists points to the Bible and asks,
"Here's the conclusion; what evidence can we single out to support it?"
No, the Scripture posits a scientific theory, which has held up under the
evidence quite nicely, thank you.
God is not an operational hypothesis. You may understand your own beliefs
very well, but you muck up when you try to extend those beliefs into the
realm of science. Accounting doesn't use God either. Why not go after those
Godless accountants?
snip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 08:37:50 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0201041727480001@192.168.1.55...
In article <vJjJb.920737$9l5.401809@pd7tw2no>, "R Brown"
<brown@hotmail.com> wrote:
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0201040937340001@pm8-25.kalama.com...
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
Some leading feather experts* have admitted that creationists were
right
to point out the futility of scales evolving into feathers. But they
are
unwilling to admit that the problem is with the evolutionary religion
itself, so they have proposed another supposition(with no evidence,
but
that should surprise no one). They described it as "evo-devo":
"Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a
series
of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new
mechanisim of growth."
However, any evidence of "developmental novelty" is better explained
as a
creation of information in birds that is not found in any scale baring
reptiles. In fact, feathers develop under the control of two genes;
one
which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this
proliferation and promotes cell differentiation(i.e. into specialzed
types), and these genes operate in precise sequence. This is an extra
layer of complexity. And the researchers still admit there is a
problem
explaining how a loose downy feather could "evo-devo" into a rigid
feather
with its elabotate system of hooks and ridges.
*Prum, R. and Brush, A., "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"
Scientific American 288(3): 60-69, March 2003
*Matthews, M., Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore
spot;
Need for a "new paradigm" in bird evolution, 12 March 2003
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie. God, the
Creator, made birds exactly as we see them today with complicated
feathers
that had to be fully functional from the start. Can you imagine a
lizard
with scales crouching on a rock and thinking in his wee little mind "
I
need to fly in the air so I had better turn these non-flying scales
into
feathers by evo-devo."
Funny, I read that same issue and got a totally different take on it. It
looks to me that, unlike religions, research continues in science.
Burt: And understanding of Scriputure continues to be understood as well.
Tom: Tee hee hee, that isn't what he said, dunce. Does research continue
into the truth of the scriptures?
You're
upset that they don't have all the answers. Such is the nature of
science.
The scientist points to a pile of evidence and asks what conclusions can
be
made if we follow this?
Burt: But of course, the athiest scientist concludes that tomatoe plants
and
girafes have a common ancestor, but never a common Creator.
Tom: Tee hee hee, sounds like a fundie creationist Christian mantra. All
scientists aren't atheists. How do you scientifically search for this common
creator, you simple *****? This is what we have been asking you for six months
and all we ever get from you are worthless assertions.
The creationists points to the Bible and asks,
"Here's the conclusion; what evidence can we single out to support it?"
Burt: No, the Scripture posits a scientific theory, which has held up under
the
evidence quite nicely, thank you.
Tom: Tee hee hee, ROTFLMAO!! "Scripture" doesn't do the first thing as far
as positing a scientific theory, you fool. Hey Burton, since you aren't
dealing with any science but only the bible, why don't you trim the header
and take alt.talk.creationism out. That way there won't be as many people
laughing at you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 02:42:21 PM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0201040937340001@pm8-25.kalama.com...
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
Some leading feather experts* have admitted that creationists were right
to point out the futility of scales evolving into feathers. But they are
unwilling to admit that the problem is with the evolutionary religion
itself, so they have proposed another supposition(with no evidence, but
that should surprise no one). They described it as "evo-devo":
"Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a series
of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new
mechanisim of growth."
However, any evidence of "developmental novelty" is better explained as a
creation of information in birds that is not found in any scale baring
reptiles. In fact, feathers develop under the control of two genes; one
which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this
proliferation and promotes cell differentiation(i.e. into specialzed
types), and these genes operate in precise sequence. This is an extra
layer of complexity. And the researchers still admit there is a problem
explaining how a loose downy feather could "evo-devo" into a rigid feather
with its elabotate system of hooks and ridges.
*Prum, R. and Brush, A., "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"
Scientific American 288(3): 60-69, March 2003
*Matthews, M., Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot;
Need for a "new paradigm" in bird evolution, 12 March 2003
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie. God, the
Creator, made birds exactly as we see them today with complicated feathers
that had to be fully functional from the start. Can you imagine a lizard
with scales crouching on a rock and thinking in his wee little mind " I
need to fly in the air so I had better turn these non-flying scales into
feathers by evo-devo."
Nicely done IKHDY.
Again science disproves evolution. Evidence continues
to pile up.
IKHDY you know you are doing some good
when you have a small army of fanatics.
who's only past time is to watch for your posts and then
try to twist the facts. Hang in there.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
04 Jan 2004 09:37:33 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in message
news:vvblil9d95h252@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
: Nicely done IKHDY.
: Again science disproves evolution. Evidence continues
: to pile up.
<snip>
Ralf:
No, no, no. You're stating that completely wrong. If you want to make
this argument, then you need to say something along the lines of new
data or insights (whatever) are showing that the theories of evolution
to be flawed in this manner or that (and then you need to back it up
with relevant particulars). But seriously, don't go with that "science
disproves evolution" nonsense - it just underscores your lack of
understanding as to what you're talking about. Science doesn't work
that way - honest.
That said, and just for the sake of argument, let's say you're correct
in principle (if not in language) - that modern theories of origins are
somehow fundamentally flawed - then what of it? If that should turn out
the be the case, then we are left with nothing to fall back on.
Creationism's greatest liability in this debate is its lack of
substance.
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Questions creationism fails to answer in a thoughtful,
carefully considered, non-trivial fasion (note: attacking
evolution is not a defense for creationism and is not an
answer to the questions posed below):
* What is the scientific basis of creationism?
* Have creation events ever been observed?
* What is the empirical evidence that creation is, or ever
has been, an active process of nature?
* How does the creation process work? What are its limits?
What are its predictions?
* How does creationism account for the fossil record
including the number of fossils, the geographic distribution
of fossils and the arrangment of fossils within various
strata?
* How does creationism account for common DNA contained in
dissimilar forms?
* How does creationism justify the claim that all variation
(micro-evolution) is the result of the loss of genetic
material?
* What are the fundamental qualities of the Creator?
* How can we distinguish between a non-natural process
(deliberate, intelligent design) and a natural process
that we (1) have not yet discovered or (2) do not fully
understand at present?
* How do we recognize non-human design?
* Why is Biblical creation valid but other types of
creationism (Buddhist, pagan, etc.) are not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Litchfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 03:32:45 PM |
|
|
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut & paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
--
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give
them the power to pull ours {Aldous Huxley 1894-1963 }
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in message
news:vvblil9d95h252@corp.supernews.com...
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0201040937340001@pm8-25.kalama.com...
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
Some leading feather experts* have admitted that creationists were right
to point out the futility of scales evolving into feathers. But they
are
unwilling to admit that the problem is with the evolutionary religion
itself, so they have proposed another supposition(with no evidence, but
that should surprise no one). They described it as "evo-devo":
"Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a
series
of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new
mechanisim of growth."
However, any evidence of "developmental novelty" is better explained as
a
creation of information in birds that is not found in any scale baring
reptiles. In fact, feathers develop under the control of two genes; one
which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this
proliferation and promotes cell differentiation(i.e. into specialzed
types), and these genes operate in precise sequence. This is an extra
layer of complexity. And the researchers still admit there is a problem
explaining how a loose downy feather could "evo-devo" into a rigid
feather
with its elabotate system of hooks and ridges.
*Prum, R. and Brush, A., "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"
Scientific American 288(3): 60-69, March 2003
*Matthews, M., Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot;
Need for a "new paradigm" in bird evolution, 12 March 2003
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie. God, the
Creator, made birds exactly as we see them today with complicated
feathers
that had to be fully functional from the start. Can you imagine a
lizard
with scales crouching on a rock and thinking in his wee little mind " I
need to fly in the air so I had better turn these non-flying scales into
feathers by evo-devo."
Nicely done IKHDY.
Again science disproves evolution. Evidence continues
to pile up.
IKHDY you know you are doing some good
when you have a small army of fanatics.
who's only past time is to watch for your posts and then
try to twist the facts. Hang in there.
Og
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut & paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
--
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give
them the power to pull ours {Aldous Huxley 1894-1963 }
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 09:36:32 AM |
|
|
"Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net> wrote in message
news:vvbosagmohvif9@corp.supernews.com...
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut &
paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
Yes sometimes he does. But he has a small army of fanatic
evolutionists who have made it their hobby to watch
for IKHDY's posts and then twist the facts. Sometimes
they will throw in quotes from little known sources that
are either unrelated to the issue being discussed, or are
just made up.
If IKHDY took the time to debate with all of them
he would have to spend several hours a day just researching
the accuracy of responses. When someone wants a
real discussion IKHDY will respond to them, but often
a leggitimate responder will get buried under the mass
of hate posts. IKHDY really does try. I must give
him credit for that.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 01:13:28 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net> wrote in message
news:vvbosagmohvif9@corp.supernews.com...
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut &
paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
Yes sometimes he does. But he has a small army of fanatic
evolutionists who have made it their hobby to watch
for IKHDY's posts and then twist the facts. Sometimes
they will throw in quotes from little known sources that
are either unrelated to the issue being discussed, or are
just made up.
Then you should have no problem providing, say, half a dozen
examples of made up quotes/sources. I know you would not make an
accusation like this without support.
If IKHDY took the time to debate with all of them
he would have to spend several hours a day just researching
the accuracy of responses.
Or he could make one claim, a claim he already has knowledge
regarding, and back up that claim. Instead he brings up half a
dozen (it seems) a day and supports none of them.
When someone wants a
real discussion IKHDY will respond to them, but often
a leggitimate responder will get buried under the mass
of hate posts. IKHDY really does try. I must give
him credit for that.
I guess you must. You seem to have some secret connection to his
real intentions. How do you do that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "elmer bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 12:54:05 PM |
|
|
Og wrote:
"Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net> wrote in message
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut & paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Yes sometimes he does. But he has a small army of fanatic
evolutionists who have made it their hobby to watch
for IKHDY's posts and then twist the facts.
Boy, just once I'd like to see INNDY actually post something that's
correct. It is rare.
Sometimes
they will throw in quotes from little known sources that
are either unrelated to the issue being discussed, or are
just made up.
Documentation of the claim that others lie, would be nice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "richard williams" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 05:42:27 PM |
|
|
Og wrote:
"Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net> wrote in message
news:vvbosagmohvif9@corp.supernews.com...
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut &
paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
Yes sometimes he does. But he has a small army of fanatic
evolutionists who have made it their hobby to watch
for IKHDY's posts and then twist the facts. Sometimes
they will throw in quotes from little known sources that
are either unrelated to the issue being discussed, or are
just made up.
If IKHDY took the time to debate with all of them
he would have to spend several hours a day just researching
the accuracy of responses. When someone wants a
real discussion IKHDY will respond to them, but often
a leggitimate responder will get buried under the mass
of hate posts. IKHDY really does try. I must give
him credit for that.
Og
i try not to judge people's sincerity, but rather the truthfulness of
what they say. IKHDY certainly expresses a zeal that is admirable. i am
concerned that he is wrong, certainly wrong, but wrong nonetheless. and
doesn't seem to listen to the many Christian voices here telling him
that. sincerity is not a measure nor even an indicator of the truth.
lots of people are sincerely wrong. that doesnt change the wrongness,
only makes them more resistant to change and less teachable.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 06:07:56 PM |
|
|
"richard williams" <rmwillia@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:3ff75364_7@corp.newsgroups.com...
Og wrote:
"Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net> wrote in message
news:vvbosagmohvif9@corp.supernews.com...
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut &
paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
Yes sometimes he does. But he has a small army of fanatic
evolutionists who have made it their hobby to watch
for IKHDY's posts and then twist the facts. Sometimes
they will throw in quotes from little known sources that
are either unrelated to the issue being discussed, or are
just made up.
If IKHDY took the time to debate with all of them
he would have to spend several hours a day just researching
the accuracy of responses. When someone wants a
real discussion IKHDY will respond to them, but often
a leggitimate responder will get buried under the mass
of hate posts. IKHDY really does try. I must give
him credit for that.
Og
i try not to judge people's sincerity, but rather the truthfulness of
what they say. IKHDY certainly expresses a zeal that is admirable. i am
concerned that he is wrong, certainly wrong, but wrong nonetheless. and
doesn't seem to listen to the many Christian voices here telling him
that. sincerity is not a measure nor even an indicator of the truth.
lots of people are sincerely wrong. that doesnt change the wrongness,
only makes them more resistant to change and less teachable.
I disagree. Some of what he posts I have looked
into before. Those at least, are straight up.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
04 Jan 2004 04:09:40 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"richard williams" <rmwillia@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:3ff75364_7@corp.newsgroups.com...
Og wrote:
"Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net> wrote in message
news:vvbosagmohvif9@corp.supernews.com...
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut &
paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
Yes sometimes he does. But he has a small army of fanatic
evolutionists who have made it their hobby to watch
for IKHDY's posts and then twist the facts. Sometimes
they will throw in quotes from little known sources that
are either unrelated to the issue being discussed, or are
just made up.
If IKHDY took the time to debate with all of them
he would have to spend several hours a day just researching
the accuracy of responses. When someone wants a
real discussion IKHDY will respond to them, but often
a leggitimate responder will get buried under the mass
of hate posts. IKHDY really does try. I must give
him credit for that.
Og
i try not to judge people's sincerity, but rather the truthfulness of
what they say. IKHDY certainly expresses a zeal that is admirable. i am
concerned that he is wrong, certainly wrong, but wrong nonetheless. and
doesn't seem to listen to the many Christian voices here telling him
that. sincerity is not a measure nor even an indicator of the truth.
lots of people are sincerely wrong. that doesnt change the wrongness,
only makes them more resistant to change and less teachable.
I disagree. Some of what he posts I have looked
into before. Those at least, are straight up.
You looked them up and yet you still don't know what an allele
is. You are ignorant of the basic facts and terms in biology but
you feel capable of judging the content of IKHDY's posts. I guess
since you both are as ignorant that makes sense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 08:20:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:07:56 -0500, "Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
"richard williams" <rmwillia@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:3ff75364_7@corp.newsgroups.com...
Og wrote:
"Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net> wrote in message
news:vvbosagmohvif9@corp.supernews.com...
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut &
paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
Yes sometimes he does. But he has a small army of fanatic
evolutionists who have made it their hobby to watch
for IKHDY's posts and then twist the facts. Sometimes
they will throw in quotes from little known sources that
are either unrelated to the issue being discussed, or are
just made up.
If IKHDY took the time to debate with all of them
he would have to spend several hours a day just researching
the accuracy of responses. When someone wants a
real discussion IKHDY will respond to them, but often
a leggitimate responder will get buried under the mass
of hate posts. IKHDY really does try. I must give
him credit for that.
Og
i try not to judge people's sincerity, but rather the truthfulness of
what they say. IKHDY certainly expresses a zeal that is admirable. i am
concerned that he is wrong, certainly wrong, but wrong nonetheless. and
doesn't seem to listen to the many Christian voices here telling him
that. sincerity is not a measure nor even an indicator of the truth.
lots of people are sincerely wrong. that doesnt change the wrongness,
only makes them more resistant to change and less teachable.
I disagree. Some of what he posts I have looked
into before. Those at least, are straight up.
Not to give you (too much of =) ) a hard time, but why is it that you
feel that you can look up IKHDY's posts, but will not look up "allele"
when I post a response in direct answer to a request from you?
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 01:33:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:36:32 -0500, "Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
"Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net> wrote in message
news:vvbosagmohvif9@corp.supernews.com...
C'mon Og, IKHDY gets his ignorant ***** kicked in every one of his cut &
paste
postings. And, you of all people should know that! Or, did you park your
intellect on the back porch when the creationist camp brainwashed you?
Shalom,
Bill
Yes sometimes he does. But he has a small army of fanatic
evolutionists who have made it their hobby to watch
for IKHDY's posts and then twist the facts.
Aside from the fact that it is IKHDY who twists the facts, I beg that
you keep Matthew 9:12-13 in mind when you wonder why people keep track
of this misleading person.
Sometimes
they will throw in quotes from little known sources that
are either unrelated to the issue being discussed, or are
just made up
I suppose you have a list of these made-up quotes? On the other hand,
there are several instances a week in which IKHDY takes a person out
of context to support his position, fails to note when a quote was
made, or even completely conflates two ideas in order to keep his
little
If IKHDY took the time to debate with all of them
he would have to spend several hours a day just researching
the accuracy of responses.
On the contrary, if he actually took the time to debate with *any* of
them, he might be forced to research real science, at which point he
would be met with irrefutable facts proving his errors.
When someone wants a
real discussion IKHDY will respond to them, but often
a leggitimate responder will get buried under the mass
of hate posts. IKHDY really does try. I must give
him credit for that.
He does no such thing. He prepares three of four posts at once,
usually on either irrelevant topics or topics he has somehow
misunderstood. He posts them more or less concomittantly, and then
runs away as people with any real understanding of science and history
point out his factual errors.
Please don't be fooled into thinking that this person knows what he is
talking about. If he did, ask yourself if he *would* use these
tactics, or if he might actually engage in a real discussion, backing
up his point with science and history.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IKnowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 12:13:56 PM |
|
|
In article <vvblil9d95h252@corp.supernews.com>, "Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
"
Nicely done IKHDY.
Again science disproves evolution. Evidence continues
to pile up.
IKHDY you know you are doing some good
when you have a small army of fanatics.
who's only past time is to watch for your posts and then
try to twist the facts. Hang in there.
Og
__________________________________________________________
Thanks, Og.
These poor souls look more foolish each day do they not?
BTW, you are not doing a bad job either...
Tell you what; I'll set them up and you knock em down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "elmer bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 01:14:52 PM |
|
|
IKnowNothingDoYou wrote:
These poor souls look more foolish each day do they not?
Yes, you do.
BTW, you are not doing a bad job either...
He knows as much about science as you do.
Tell you what; I'll set them up and you knock em down.
Bwahahaha!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
03 Jan 2004 01:36:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:13:56 -0800,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
In article <vvblil9d95h252@corp.supernews.com>, "Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
"
Nicely done IKHDY.
Again science disproves evolution. Evidence continues
to pile up.
IKHDY you know you are doing some good
when you have a small army of fanatics.
who's only past time is to watch for your posts and then
try to twist the facts. Hang in there.
Og
__________________________________________________________
Thanks, Og.
These poor souls look more foolish each day do they not?
BTW, you are not doing a bad job either...
Tell you what; I'll set them up and you knock em down.
You are laughable. You might be taken more seriously if you responded
to those that disagree with you rather than the one person here that
you have found with a shallow enough understanding of science to agree
with you.
In your last three rapid-fire started threads, you answer none of the
objections raised: Why is that? There aren't 1700 posts to read
through--closer to twenty. Surely it isn't difficult for you to see
where the real objections are, and where the "hate mail" responses
are. So what is it? Are you simply unable to answer them?
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 03:45:53 PM |
|
|
Og wrote:
Nicely done IKHDY.
Again science disproves evolution. Evidence continues
to pile up.
How does one disprove a fact?
IKHDY you know you are doing some good
No he isn't. He makes believers look like Luddites.
when you have a small army of fanatics.
who's only past time is to watch for your posts and then
try to twist the facts. Hang in there.
Great. Try finding out for yourself if INNDY's facts are true.
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cricket" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 08:11:13 PM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0201040937340001@pm8-25.kalama.com...
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
Some leading feather experts* have admitted that creationists were right
to point out the futility of scales evolving into feathers. But they are
unwilling to admit that the problem is with the evolutionary religion
itself, so they have proposed another supposition(with no evidence, but
that should surprise no one). They described it as "evo-devo":
"Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a series
of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new
mechanisim of growth."
However, any evidence of "developmental novelty" is better explained as a
creation of information in birds that is not found in any scale baring
reptiles. In fact, feathers develop under the control of two genes; one
which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this
proliferation and promotes cell differentiation(i.e. into specialzed
types), and these genes operate in precise sequence. This is an extra
layer of complexity. And the researchers still admit there is a problem
explaining how a loose downy feather could "evo-devo" into a rigid feather
with its elabotate system of hooks and ridges.
*Prum, R. and Brush, A., "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"
Scientific American 288(3): 60-69, March 2003
*Matthews, M., Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot;
Need for a "new paradigm" in bird evolution, 12 March 2003
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie. God, the
Creator, made birds exactly as we see them today with complicated feathers
that had to be fully functional from the start. Can you imagine a lizard
with scales crouching on a rock and thinking in his wee little mind " I
need to fly in the air so I had better turn these non-flying scales into
feathers by evo-devo."
You do know that there are lizard that glide a hundred feet or more? That
exist in the present day?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bup" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 04:10:59 PM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <heavenly@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:heavenly-0201040937340001@pm8-25.kalama.com...
| Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
| <drivel edited out>
Do you have to put the original post in so many newsgroups? Which newsgroup
do you read *from*?
People will now accuse *me* of cross-posting because I answered this post.
*Supposedly* I could answer in just any one group and you would be checking
it to see any reply - but that it unlikely so I am posting back in the
groups you posted to.
However, in the future, try to post to just one group. These are
**discussion** groups not your personal broadcast spam network.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 01:08:21 PM |
|
|
Once again the truth confronts an evolutionary religion lie.
[rest of worthless blah blah snipped]
Let's get to facts now, shall we?
Tell us how much is 12 - 9, eh?
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Scales to Feathers-Another Lie |
02 Jan 2004 01:45:36 PM |
|
|
IKnowNothingDoYou wrote:
Scales to Feathers-Another Lie
From (Exp Zoolog Part B Mol Dev Evol. 2003 Aug 15;298(1):57-72.) "Avian
skin development and the evolutionary origin of feathers."by Sawyer RH,
Knapp LW.; Department of Biological Sciences, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA.
"Evidence suggests that the discrete epidermal lineages that make up the
embryonic feather filament of extant birds are homologous with similar
embryonic lineages of the developing scutate scales of birds and the
scales of alligators."
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
