"Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnderson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180453795.649630.137120@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 8:37 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was
wrong. What do you do, sir?
An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
Your lie is unacceptable.
No lie, just fact. Here's a refernce to observed speciation and
evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
So, since evolution of species is an observed fact, may I assume
you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all. If a
speciation occurs for an isolated variety, only then can you justifiably say
one instance of biological change (if not evolution, which word implies
improvement or enhancement of some kind, judging by certain criteria for
what are better characteristics) has been observed. Hybridization induced by
man's meddling or by wind or by bees, etc. due to proximities of two
different species breeding obviously ought to be left out when discussing
speciation, which has never been observed to occur naturally in genetic
isolation (all occurrences of speciation are due to direct interferences of
the Lord God of heaven and earth, such as what happened to the serpent in
the garden of Eden and the coming forth of weeds, etc. due to the Almighty's
curses upon the earth, as explained by Brigham Young). Take for instance,
the animal kingdom, in which there's no possibility of anything like wind
pollination for Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences
of speciation.
James Clerk Maxwell (1867 letter to a fellow physicist, Peter Guthrie Tait,
also an expert in themodynamics):
"The value of the metaphysics is equal to the mathematical and physical
knowledge of the author divided by his confidence in reasoning from
the names of things."
http://www.hypercomplex.com/education/intro_tutorial/nabla.html
Maxwell, like Tait, didn't have much of a stomach for the kind of
metaphysics that came from non-scientists, which often seemed
to consist of nothing but a vacuous play on words.
[end of excerpt]
I understand that field biology has little to do with metaphysics, at least
upon immediate consideration, but you see my point, if you are honest.
(You have not been honest thus far in this thread but mostly wasting
my time.)
Speaking of field biology, has a female tiger ever been observed to produce,
after having mated within her species, a liger or a lion or any other type
of cat? Does it scientifically make any sense that this could be a
possibility at all? I ask you this question, especially because in the
animal kingdom, there's no possibility of anything like wind pollination for
Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences of speciation.
Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, these aren't genuine
scientists. Just advocates of a false ideology, anti-Christs all. There were
and are (esp. in the past) true biologists, true natural philosophers all,
but these three are confirmed charlatans. (Having just learned a little bit
about Tait, that he was not a really spiritual minded scientist, I wouldn't
be surprised if he sustained Evolution in spite of his knowledge of
thermodynamics. But, I have shown in correspondences with Redtrollnames that
Maxwell did not. The point though, is that it's not who says it but what is
said, whether facts and objective reasoning are given by a presenter of any
view, scientific or otherwise. Of course, true religion encompasses all
branches of science, in fact all of life itself. Even if Maxwell did support
Evolution, that doesn't make it true. It so happens that Maxwell himself
rejected Evolution (though not very vocal about it), and I have totally
demonstrated this, so if you want to judge by subjective credibility
suggested by any 'brand name', I offer you the name of the ultra competent
James Clerk Maxwell, if somehow the sanctified names of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young and Art Bulla aren't enough for your appetite.)
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Clerk Maxwell ... yet showed on fit occasion his contempt for that
pseudo-science which seeks for the applause of the ignorant by professing to
reduce the whole system of the universe to a fortuitous sequence of uncaused
events.
The LoveToKnow Free Online Encyclopedia is based on what many consider to be
the best encyclopedia ever written: the eleventh edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, first published in 1911.
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:About
In your talk.origins web link, there's a section titled "5.2 Speciations in
Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy". That's only two
examples, and neither is in any way valid, again bogus. The first example is
one where there already existed two different but closely related species in
a given area. In the second example, some degree of hybridization occurred
anyway. Again, nonsense.
Btw genetic changes caused by exposure to x-rays and by any other such
artificial or unnatural means, or mutation as it is called, are generally
for the worse for the affected organism and besides, such changes are not
isolated biological changes. Where there's an effect, there was a cause for
it. There's no such thing as genetically isolated biological change, neither
to any individual organism (other than the process of aging) nor to the
offspring thereof. If you don't believe the Biblical account, at least no
human being has ever detected any such biological change, or phylogeny or
evolution. There are plenty of false or apostate religious sects, too many
to count, but the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true accounts and Art
Bulla is the One Mighty and Strong prophesied therein, and these things and
other appropriate things (i.e., not to tempt God) you may inquire for
yourself through independent, objective reflections and unfeigned humility
and sincere prayers of faith to the Father in the name of Messiah.
When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was wrong. What do you
do, sir?
What talk.origins did, they just banned us for life from posting to their
beloved religious newsgroup, in observance of the Principle of Fascist
Reaction.
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?
or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?
(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:16)
19 ... Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt
not sow thy field with mingled seed: ...
(Old Testament | Leviticus 19:19)
.
|
