Evolution Takes Science Honors
Budikka666
there's no proof or evidence, the Theory of Evolution accumulates
mountains of evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals the
world over by people of all faiths, and is now honored by _Science_
journal: "Research into how evolution works has been named top science
achievement of 2005":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm
26 proofs of macroevolution:
http://tinyurl.com/79btb
666 items of evidence strongly supporting macroevolution:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/e3f2b
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/b4brg
Examples 636-666 http://tinyurl.com/chfv2
Readily available information on, and evidence for evolution:
A Christian take on radiometric dating:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Abiogenesis:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.htm
Proto cells:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Factories of life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Smallest genome a lot smaller than smallest modern cell:
http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2001/
Precambrian to cambrian:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
Early diversification:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
Transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Primitive fish different:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/504776.stm
Fish with fingers:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/fishfossil0312.html
Snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/680116.stm
Ant-wasp evolution:
http://www.antnest.co.uk/Origin.html
Mosquitoes still evolving:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/158522.stm
Origins of flight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2664541.stm
4-winged dinos:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684927.stm
Dog evolution:
http://www.provet.co.uk/online/dogs/evolution%20of%20the%20dog.htm
Human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Computer simulated evolution:
http://necsi.org/postdocs/sayama/sdsr/
Evolution vs. creationism debates:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/debates.html
Evolution not "atheist religion":
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creat2.html
29 Evidences supporting evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The evolution of the eye:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
The woodpecker's tongue:
http://omega.med.yale.edu/~rjr38/Woodpecker.htm
Radiometric dating - a Christian perpective:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Noah's ark never happened:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
Ex-creationist on why young Earth creationism doesn't work:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/
Another ex-creationist:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Creationists cannot define "kind":
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm
Even evolutionists believe in God!:
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1997/04/04/01.asp
General anti-creationism/pro-evolution FAQs:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html
http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/newindex.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/complexity.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm
http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/index.html
Questionable creationist credentials:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Even dyed-in-the-wool creationists think a lot of their arguments are
bad:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>While certain colossally clueless congenital cretinists lie that
>there's no proof or evidence, the Theory of Evolution accumulates
>mountains of evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals the
>world over by people of all faiths, and is now honored by _Science_
>journal: "Research into how evolution works has been named top science
>achievement of 2005":
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm
That's the point. Science has long since progressed from "does/did
evolution happen?". That was settled 200 or more years ago. Because it
was the label given to the observations that fossils change and
diverge over time. For the last 150+ plus years it has been about
_how_ it happens, what causes it, what its mechanisms are etc.
If it didn't happen, or its mechanisms were different, science would
have gone in a different direction. They can't grasp that science
merely follows where evidecne and investigation lead, and is all about
the utility of the explanations derived.
towelie
> On 29 Dec 2005 11:46:15 -0800, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>While certain colossally clueless congenital cretinists lie that
>>there's no proof or evidence, the Theory of Evolution accumulates
>>mountains of evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals the
>>world over by people of all faiths, and is now honored by _Science_
>>journal: "Research into how evolution works has been named top science
>>achievement of 2005":
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm
>
> That's the point. Science has long since progressed from "does/did
> evolution happen?". That was settled 200 or more years ago. Because it
> was the label given to the observations that fossils change and
> diverge over time. For the last 150+ plus years it has been about
> _how_ it happens, what causes it, what its mechanisms are etc.
But 200 years ago is ultra-futuristic to the mindless believer who lives in
the Bronze Age.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
oldwetdog
If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
Just Mark
"towelie" <bugoN...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ltadnb0h8P1N2Sne...@centurytel.net...
What a great point.
Just Mark
"oldwetdog" <oldw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11r8j98...@corp.supernews.com...
If the Bible contains fictions, then the Bible is fiction. (Numbers
22:28-30, for example)
Llanzlan Klazmon
news:11r8j98...@corp.supernews.com:
Luckily no lies were honoured, so science continues to be true. Whew, looks
like my computer will continue to work after all.
Klazmon.
Mr President
Saint Zombie
wrote:
>The universe was created in 6 literal days, get over it.
>
You meant to say,
I was taught the universe was created in 6 literal days.
I mean I think so. But maybe it was crated in 7 days.
Gee, I duuno. Please forgive me. I'm sorta a bit stupid.
Anyway, what ever my church pastor says, is the Truth. ;-)
Just Mark
"Mr President" <ja...@jazz.jazz> wrote in message
news:dp1qmc$o5m$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The universe was created in 6 literal days, get over it.
Prove it.
Weatherwax
"oldwetdog" <oldw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
If religion preaches a lie, then religion is a lie.
BTW: Have you read what Judge Jones said about the members of the Dover
Area School Board who "either testified inconsistently, or lied outright
under oath on several occasions"?
He stated:
It is ironic that several of these individuals who so
staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions
in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks
and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file577_23137.pdf
pages 106, 137.
--Wax
Ananias917
<Weath...@worldnet.net> spake thusly:
>
>"oldwetdog" <oldw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
>
>If religion preaches a lie, then religion is a lie.
>
>BTW: Have you read what Judge Jones said about the members of the Dover
>Area School Board who "either testified inconsistently, or lied outright
>under oath on several occasions"?
Lied according to his definition of what truth is.
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
The Last Days were in the first century:
1 cORINTHIANS 1:7-8
7) So that YE come behind in no gift; waiting
for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8) Who shall also confirm YOU unto the end,
that YE may be blameless in the day of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Budikka666
> If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
Clearly you're a rank amateur with one credit in "reading asinine
cretinist web sites" and one credit in "gross gullibility". That's
what's holding you back again this year - not enough to graduate.
The modern Theory of Evolution rests on 150 years of solid science,
which has been published in refereed science journals worldwide by
people **OF ALL FAITHS** and all nationalities.
Meanwhile, what evidence do the cretinists have? Is there even **ONE**
paper published in a science journal which overthrows the Theory of
Evolution? No!
Well, is there any paper published *anywhere* which establishes an
alternative *scientific* theory which better explains the evidence than
does the Theory of Evolution? No!
While certain colossally clueless congenital cretinists lie that
there's no proof or evidence, the Theory of Evolution accumulates
mountains of evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals the
world over by people of all faiths, and is now honored by _Science_
journal: "Research into how evolution works has been named top science
achievement of 2005":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm
26 proofs of macroevolution:
Budikka666
> If the Bible contains fictions, then the Bible is fiction. (Numbers
> 22:28-30, for example)
That's just God, talking out of his ass, as usual.
Budikka
Budikka666
> The universe was created in 6 literal days, get over it.
Nice fable. Pity the evidence disproves it.
Radiometric dating - a Christian perpective:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Budikka
DaveJr
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1135925392.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Mr President wrote:
> > The universe was created in 6 literal days, get over it.
*Did that include daylight savings time?*
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You must be a creationist. Are they all stupid, ignorant liars?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>The universe was created in 6 literal days, get over it.
Either a liar or an idiot.
Robibnikoff
"Mr President" <ja...@jazz.jazz> wrote in message
news:dp1qmc$o5m$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Poor troll. I give it a -1
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
David Jensen
Ananias917 <_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote in
<h1h9r19rnqlp64hto...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:49:38 GMT, "Weatherwax"
><Weath...@worldnet.net> spake thusly:
>
>>
>>"oldwetdog" <oldw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
>>
>>If religion preaches a lie, then religion is a lie.
>>
>>BTW: Have you read what Judge Jones said about the members of the Dover
>>Area School Board who "either testified inconsistently, or lied outright
>>under oath on several occasions"?
>
>Lied according to his definition of what truth is.
Lied according to objective evidence. They lied about their own
behavior. They were inconsistent from one time to another. They tried to
hide their behavior. They were caught.
There are no excuses for what they did. I cannot imagine that any
Christians would give them a pass for the lies they told or the way they
tried to hide their behavior.
Just Mark
::snort!::
Me likey.
stoney
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
That's nice, child. Now run along and leave the adults be. You'll be
starting kindergarten soon enough.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
stoney
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:49:38 GMT, "Weatherwax"
><Weath...@worldnet.net> spake thusly:
>
>>
>>"oldwetdog" <oldw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
>>
>>If religion preaches a lie, then religion is a lie.
>>
>>BTW: Have you read what Judge Jones said about the members of the Dover
>>Area School Board who "either testified inconsistently, or lied outright
>>under oath on several occasions"?
>
>Lied according to his definition of what truth is.
I certainly hope you are kept far away from children, oh amoral one.
stoney
Clearly the answer is 'affirmative.'
stoney
wrote:
>The universe was created in 6 literal days, get over it.
LMAO [pointing]
stoney
Both.
u2 fan
of civilizations only covers a few thousand years ie 0.00001% of time. Why
is there no
skyscrapers or even a basic invention from 1 billion or even 10,000 years
ago? Why did mankind only
evolve over the last few thousand years why not 1,000,000 years ago ?
Simply the answer is the universe as the bible states was made in 6 days and
is around 6000 years old.
Mr President
--
"Just Mark" <nob...@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:fK%sf.5489$Pi....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Just Mark
"Mr President" <ja...@jazz.jazz> wrote in message
> Disprove it
You posited the claim. All I said was, "Prove it."
But if you can't do it.....[shrug]
Just Mark
"u2 fan" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:dp44up$kdo$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Hey, Blowjobriol....
There are basic inventions from long before 10,000 years ago. They're
called "tools". One recent innovation you might find interesting -- or
tasty -- is something we call "books".
And mankind has been "evolving" since the first little single-cell organisms
appeared on this planet.
And you still haven't proven your original conjecture, Mr. President.
John P. Boatwright
>
> While certain colossally clueless congenital cretinists lie that
> there's no proof or evidence, the Theory of Evolution accumulates
> mountains of evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals the
> world over by people of all faiths, and is now honored by _Science_
> journal: "Research into how evolution works has been named top science
> achievement of 2005":
God said men would do what you're promoting there Buddika, honoring
creatures more than the creator... homosexuals... claiming creatures
are making themselves... It was already known centuries ago what you
guys would be claiming and doing:
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified
him not as God, neither were thankful; but became
vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into
an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds,
and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour
their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and
worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the
natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use
of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in
their knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do those things which are
not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of
envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient
to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without
natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which
commit such things are worthy of death, not only
do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
God knew all about what you guys would be claiming.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Budikka666
> God said men would do what you're promoting
God said nothing. There is no god. Your "proof" of god has been
thoroughly discredited. You have nothing to back you idiotic and
childish claims but blind belief. deal with that first.
If there had been a god who *did* create humanity, then it is this
god's incompetence in design which created homosexuality, which exists
in nature, not just in humanity. Deal with that.
[religious lies flushed where they belong]
> God knew all about what you guys would be claiming
Apparently not. I'll add this to you list of documented lies:
Here is a quick review of Boaty cosmology:
Gen 1: There was a big bang.
Gen 2. The Earth came into existence covered with water.
Gen 3. There was a big bang.
Gen 4. There was a big bang.
Gen 5. There was the first 24 hour day.
Gen 6. There was a big bang.
Gen 7. There was a big bang.
Gen 8. The big bangs stopped, and it was Heaven.
Gen 9. Land and sea separated.
Gen 10. God said, "Damn I'm good!"
Gen 11. There was grass and fruit trees.
Gen 12. There was grass and fruit trees.
Gen 13. The Biblical obsession with 'third days' began.
Gen 14. There were lights affixed to a solid firmament.
Gen 15. The Earth got lit up, presaging Noah getting lit up after the
flood.
Gen 16. Sun, moon, and stars appeared.
Gen 17. There were lights affixed to a solid firmament.
Gen 18. There were lights affixed to a solid firmament.
Gen 19. There was a fourth day.
Gen 20. The same waters that were the big bang - i.e. Hydrogen - now
bring forth living things and fowl that fly in the newly opened
firmament.
Gen 21. God created Whales (and probably England, Ireland, and
Scotland) and living things and fowl. God said, "Damn I'm good!"
Gen 22. God told living things to multiply in the waters (thus
inventing math, wa-ay before those Greeks) and fowl to multiply in the
Earth (thus inventing the underground, millennia before Lou Reed).
Gen 23. There was a fifth day (or God drank a fifth - the original
Hebrew is rather vague on this spirit thing).
Gen 24. The Earth brought forth the living creature after his kind,
including those nasty creeping things which we would all be better off
without.
Gen 25. God made the beast of the Earth after those damnably
indefinable "kinds." God said, "Damn I'm good!"
Gen 26. God screwed up - and this is what makes me think it really was
a fifth that he drank: he had made a perfectly good planet with no
problems at all, then he had to go and say, "Let us make man in our
image." This man supposedly was to dominate every living thing, but I
don't see him dominating a lion in a fist-fight, nor do I see any
evidence whatsoever of dominion over viruses and bacteria. Makes me
wonder if they are the real chosen ones.
Gen 27. Male and female created he them (judging by the grammar, I
cannot tell if this was done by god or Master Yoda).
Boaty claims proof that god described the Moon's formation. He begins
in his usual non-sequitur fashion by talking about density. It becomes
immediately apparent that the only thing that is really dense is Boaty
himself: "In these cases, the lighter elements in the stars are
obviously being SEPARATED by more dense matter EXPLODING, more than
likely in a FISSION based EXPLOSION."
Huh? I would love to see him explain that one to a physicist. He
reuses his earlier explanation regarding the separation of the waters,
but here, it does not mean a big bang, it means, instead, a star
separating the lighter elements below from the lighter elements above
by means of a fission reaction among the heavier elements! Now which
is it, Boaty?
Boaty doesn't grasp that the heavier a stellar element is, the closer
it is to the center of the star, because this is how stars work. A
star fuses hydrogen into helium. In a large enough star, when the
hydrogen starts to run out, the star collapses to the point where
helium itself will fuse into carbon. This process jumps through oxygen
and silicon until the star starts producing iron at its core. Iron
cannot fuse further, and this is the beginning of the end. When the
iron core reaches the Chandrasekhar limit, it implodes in a fraction of
a second, and rebounds into the outer shell, which is also collapsing.
This explosion is a supernova. This is how the heavy elements are
created.
Boaty: " The heavier elements forming to make up the "firmament" ring
actually ABSORB excess energy in the solar atmosphere as they form"
This is Boaty's explanation for the heavier elements - they form in the
sun's atmosphere! How, pray tell, O Boaty-One Kenobi, does this in any
way, shape, or form, resemble the way a star really works? Please do
submit a physics paper on it, and do give Hans Bethe a call to tell him
he's wrong and insist he give up his Nobel prize.
Boaty: "The moon's mean density overall is LESS than the earth's mean
density. This is
easily possible in that the moon could form from REGATHERING from the
last >>> LIGHTER <<< elements shot out furthest and taking longer to
REGATHER."
Sorry, but the moon is not formed from hydrogen, helium, carbon, and
oxygen. It resembles the Earth's crust, and the current best
explanation for it is that it was blasted out of the Earth itself in a
close encounter of the worst kind with an asteroid.
Boaty: "The near side of the moon has the most dense matter, that's
what keeps the moon always showing the same "side" to earth."
To use Boaty's own words: Ha ha ha! Another Boaty lie. The truth is
that the majority of natural satellites in the solar system present the
same face to their parent planet. It has to do with conservation of
angular momentum and tidal friction - not the friction of ocean tides,
but of the "tides" raised within the planet itself and within its moon.
This may well have contributed to the moon exhibiting somewhat higher
density on its Earth side, but that is a result, not a cause of its
presenting the same face to the Earth.
Boaty: "All confirming that the "pre-sun" was the source of the
planets, the matter exploding outwards from a ring shaped FISSION
explosion of matter originally located under the surface of that
"pre-sun" star."
Lie! The sun and planets "condensed" from a cloud of elements at the
same time. This is what we see when we look at young stars forming out
in the universe. Boatwrong again.
Boaty offers another table, the most amazing claim from which is: "Man
and land animals [day] 6 [geological time] 1 Byr [matches science?]
Yes"
Have humans and land animals been on the planet for a billion years?
Nope! Boatwrong again.
Boaty's proof that god corrected someone about the firmament: "Job
37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a
molten looking glass?"
The sky is strong? The only way you could support this is if you
believe the Genesis claim that god put a solid firmament in the sky to
hold the stars up. Boatwrong again.
Boaty claims: "The concentration of FISSIONABLE matter is the main
reason why the heavier elements didn't fission away in the atmosphere"
Did I read this right? The *concentration* of fissionable matter makes
it *less* likely to dissipate? He needs to tell that to the Africans
who have an all-natural nuclear reactor on their continent. Boaty
needs to spend less time at mass and read up on 'critical mass'.
Let's delete Boaty's claims for the book of Job, right here. First of
all, Job is one of the books of the Bible that actually isn't a Hebrew
book.
Secondly, Boaty's favorite chapter (38:4-6) has this to say: "Where
wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou
hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou
knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the
foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof..."
So here we have god claiming that he laid foundations for the Earth and
anchored them into something, that he sized up the work using a
measuring line, and began the work with a corner stone. Yeah, Boaty -
this really shows a sophisticated understanding of planetary origins
and mechanics!
Boaty: "In other words, God is DENYING that Adam evolved since God
specifically states Adam formed from the dust of the ground"
God does no such thing. The Bible writers claim this - let's not
confuse the two. I see no evidence whatsoever that any animal, let
alone humans, is based on silicon. Primarily, we are made from
hydrogen and oxygen, with nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and, of course,
carbon the next most common elements. Perhaps it is not a coincidence
that two-thirds of these elements are made in stellar fusion! We are
carbon life forms, not silicon, both male and female. Nowhere is there
evidence that males are silicon-based or females are calcium-based as
they would have to be were they made from dust and bone.
Boaty: "...Cain told God that he thought OTHERS would kill him... who
were the others?"
Good question, Boaty! If Adam and Eve were the first humans, and Cain
was one of the first two sons, the other of whom was dead, what did he
have to fear that he needed god to put a mark on his head to save him
from others? Another Bible lie.
Boaty pretends that the Biblical claim that Jesus would be raised on
the third day is not wrong! Well, the first day was Friday evening
through Saturday evening. The second day was Saturday evening through
Sunday evening. Sunday was the second day. So Jesus was discovered
missing (according to the Bible) not on the third day, but on the
second day. The Bible prophecy was wrong.
Boaty insists dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible with the assertion
that the term used in the English text was 'dragons'. The English
word 'dragon' comes from the Greek word 'drakon' (duh!). Notice that
the earliest good Bible we have is the Septuagint - in Greek! This
word means serpent, period. In the Bible, the serpent starts out being
equated with Satan in Genesis, and ends up that same way in revelation:
Rev 12:4-9 "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven,
and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the
woman...And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought
against the dragon...And the great dragon was cast out, that old
serpent, called the Devil..."
Note elsewhere it can mean nothing other than 'snake':
Psalms 91:13 "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion
and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."
This passage clearly equates adder with dragon in that typical Hebrew
way of repeating something for emphasis. Pray tell, how does one
trample a diplodocus under one's feet?
Note this reference equating dragon and serpent:
Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong
sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that
crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.
Note also:
"Jeremiah 51:34 Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me,
he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed
me up like a dragon "
(in other words like a snake swallows it prey - whole).
Boatwrong again.
Boaty thinks to explain the thoroughly discrepant lists given for the
ancestry of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. He refers to Luke 3:27: "Which
was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa,..." and claims that
listing Joanna as 'the son of' someone else is a mistake. Wait a
minute - Boaty admitting that the Bible is errant? Maybe he isn't as
dumb as he has so far proven to be. The problem is: we do not know the
sex of Joanna. Boaty is assuming it is a female. None of the Bible
names we are familiar with in English (not even 'God' and 'Jesus') bear
much resemblence to the Hebrew names. We do not even know if either
list is remotely accurate or if both of them are complete fantasy.
The bottom line is that both lists are irrelevant. They go out of
their way to "prove" that Jesus was of royal ancestry, which completely
disowns his virgin birth. The fact that such an effort is made to
establish his credentials tends to prove the virgin birth a complete
lie! Jesus was not the son of god, but truly the son of Joseph! So
either the Bible lies, or...it lies!
Boaty also lies: "In the typical bible translations, for each person
given in that list that followed, the "Son of" was ADDED by the
translators"
Wrong! The "original" actually said "Which was of Joanna, which was of
Rhesa,..." it was the words, "the son" which were added. Which means
Boatwrong again - the lists do actually portray a lineage, not mere
relatives. Anything less than this would defeat the very purpose of
the listing - that of "proving" that Jesus was royalty!
Pi in Boaty's face. Frankly, I don't think the 1 Kings 7 pi problem is
an issue - the Hebrews were probably simply rounding the numbers - they
liked nice round numbers. There are two problems though. First of
all, Boaty is trying to establish Biblical scientific credibility, and
it damages his case significantly that the Bible writers are so sloppy.
Secondly, Boaty's claim that they are accurate, is simply a lie! He
claims that there is confusion over exactly what is measured. He
states: "The bible claims that there is an ADDED brim that is a "hand
width" thick."
Let's see what it actually does say:
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other:
it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of
thirty cubits did compass it round about."
So if we add the brim to the measure, regardless of how thick the bowl
itself was, 30 cubits is even further from the truth! But let's look
at the verse that mentions thickness:
I Kings 7:26 "And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof
was wrought like the brim of a cup..."
So the Bible specifically does not say that the brim was a handbreadth
thick, but that the bowl itself was! Everything Boaty claims after
this is therefore bullshit. Boatwrong again.
Boaty claims: "Most all life depends on plant sugars. Hence, no prior
plants, not much life will show up. Genesis really cleans up in this
regard."
Hello?! Where did this insane notion come from? Boaty makes the
typical creationist mistake of thinking most life = life we most
commonly see.
Boaty: "The original Hebrew does not call out a specific version of
plant..."
Gen 1:11 "...Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind..."
I see grass, herbs, and fruit trees, i.e flowering plants. These did
not appear four to six billion years before the present, as Boaty's
insane dating system would require (the third day), nor did they appear
on Earth four billion years after the big bang. Boatwrong again.
Boaty: "The sun fully formed or "lit up" when internal fusion began in
the suns interior..."
Boaty has already demonstrated a convincing ignorance of solar
mechanics, so let me enlighten him: it would have taken about a million
years for the light energy from the center of the sun to actually reach
the surface even after fusion began (one reason why the creationist
6,000 year history is so appallingly wrong). The sun is actually dark
inside - its energy does not descend to the visible frequencies until
it gets close to the solar surface.
Boaty rambles on: "Often people will say, "I need personal proof, I
want God to show up in front of me and do something spectacular"...So
God should do 5 billion spectacular things DAILY to prove himself to
each and every one of us? Well, that would make God fairly common and
almost a slave to his creation."
What meaningless claptrap! How would it even remotely constitute the
slightest effort for the being who created everything from nothing to
offer individual proof to us? Notice how Boaty subtley switches the
question so that instead of it being a one time proof (" I want God to
show up in front of me and do something spectacular") it becomes a
daily chore (" So God should do 5 billion spectacular things DAILY").
First of all it would reach everyone simultaneously. It would
constitute no effort at all on god's part. It would be utterly
convincing. It would dramatically pull the rug from under satan.
There is no reason for god not to do this except for his own
bloody-mindedly psychoses.
Boaty claims god's proof is in his predictions of future events. This
is bullshit, since the Bible is, by Boaty's own admission, unreliable.
If we cannot trust it, then we cannot trust its predictions, especially
not when they are manipulated and twisted by people like John P.
Boatwright.
Boaty tackles free will: "You have free will to believe in God or not,
and free will to do good or evil. Free will means you decide for
yourself what you'll do and believe."
I shall avoid the logical argument that there cannot be both free will
on our part *and* omniscience on god's part. The two are mutally
exclusive, but Boaty is thoroughly incapable of grasping this, so let
me approach this a different way.
The problem is that we do not have free will. First of all, such a
choice between belief and disbelief could only be free if we had
reliable evidence of god to begin with, but this is the very thing at
issue here!
Secondly, if the penalty (or lack of penalty) is the same, no matter
what we choose to do, then we truly do have free will to do as we
please. However, if we are offered two options, the "reward" for one
being eternal suffering, and the reward for the other eternal bliss,
then how does this in any way, shape, or form even remotely constitute
a free choice? It's not free. We are coerced. If god had any trust
at all in his creation, he would allow us to choose between him and
satan, with the same reward in both cases, confident that we would
inevitably choose him. The bottom line is that god does not trust his
own work, and that's why he has to bribe us to follow him! What a weak
god this is!
Boaty claims the proof is the Bible - surprise surprise! But Boaty has
already admitted that the Bible has errors, so how can we rely on it?
He claims the Bible's accurate predictions of the future prove they
came from god, but these predictions are not true, and even if they
were, this does not prove they came from the creator of the universe!
Does Ezekiel 37 prove his case? This is where Ezekiel, in spirit form,
is shown a valley full of bones. The Lord asks him to prophesy unto
the bones and prophesy unto the wind, in order to resurrect the bones.
Note the use of 'prophesy' here. Contary to what Bible-belters
pretend, 'to prophesy' was not to predict the future, but to sing songs
and recite poetry. Prophets were the minstrels of the Biblical era.
Ezekiel isn't asked to predict the future to these bones, he is asked
to sing or recite poetry to them! In other words, the claim that these
are prophets in the modern understanding of the word fails from the
outset, because they were not even attempting to predict the future.
In fact, the only ones who got publicity (and appeared in the Bible),
just as it is with today's news, were those who did nothing but whine
and gripe!
So here he is, ShowBoating that Ezekiel 37 predicts the uniting of the
tribes of Israel, since Israel now has its own national boundaries.
But this is bullshit again. First of all, the Jews are not all come
together, they are still dispersed throughout the world! There are
more Jews living outside Israel than in it. Secondly (and this is
something Boaty carefully avoids) the claim made in Ezekiel 37 is that
the Jews will be reunited under King David. Excuse me but where and
when did this prediction come true? Short answer: Never. Boatwrong
again.
Having failed in this Boaty then retreats to that Jeremiah, quoting
several passages which predict nothing - not even remotely. From these
non-predictions, he makes up more fantastic fables. He next seeks to
profit from Isaiah, but neglects to address the fact that the book of
Isaiah was not written by Isaiah. It was probably written by, at best,
his disciples and followers.
Worse than this, the later portions of Isaiah were written centuries
later by two other people not connected with Isaiah, but capitalising
on his name. So when Boaty claims: "In Isaiah 44:28 written 125 years
BEFORE Cyrus king of Persia was born," we know for a fact that he is
lying. These texts were written after the events. In all probability,
the book reached its currently known form around 350BC, some 300 years
after Cyrus was born. Now how hard is it to make accurate predictions
after the events you are predicting?
Boaty offers pictures (without any real credits) which consist mostly
of clouds of interstellar gas (a favorite of his is the Eagle nebula -
known as the 'pillars of creation'). There are several things to be
said about this.
First of all, you can see Jesus in anything if you try hard enough.
You can see him in a mold stain, in a cloud, in a tree, on the side of
a building. You can see Jesus in dogshit. None of this means a damned
thing.
Secondly, Boaty's images are so hard to discern that he has to label
them, pointing out the details to fully ensure that you see precisely
what he wants you to see and nothing else. This is hardly a
recommendation.
Thirdly, the pictures he shows are deliberately color-tinted by NASA
scientists to bring out details for their own purposes. The actual
nebulae not colorful at all: they are all indistinct gray puffs,
showing nothing like Boaty pretends.
Fourthly, no one knows what Jesus, Mary and Peter looked like (I mean
we can guess they were dark skinned and Jewish, but hey!). There are
no descriptions. For Boaty to claim these nebulae show these figures
is also for him to arrogantly and blasphemously claim he knows
precisely how god himself appeared.
Fifthly, there demonstrably was no such person as Jesus to begin with,
so how can these images, and the shroud of Turin show anything of the
sort?!!
Boaty's 'eye of god' image is nothing but a misinterpreted photo of a a
double stellar explosion. What we are looking at is two spheres of
illuminated, expanding gas. The only reason they look like rings is
that we see the image in a 2-D effect.
Boaty's 'Near death experience tunnel!' is a lens artifact.
His 'Israel shall blossom and bud!' is a completely meaningless picture
of dust clouds.
Boaty asks: "What do HST images have to do with God?" and answers: "God
is giving a warning that major stuff is about to happen.
What nonsense and trash! Let's look at this second coming, because it
is the biggest lie in Christianity second only to the resurrection.
Although the fundies passionately spread the lie that the return is
imminent, Jesus himself supposedly claimed no one knew the hour.
However, Jesus did (the Bible pretends) set a specific time period for
this to happen. Unfortunately, that time period is long past, and
nothing happened!
In Matthew 12:27-28, Jesus tells his followers that people alive then
will still be alive when he returns. He amplifies this prophecy in
Matthew 24:34, Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27, and Luke 21:32.
Obviously the prophecy was false. All those people are long dead, and
Jesus never returned. Perhaps he really is buried in India!
So the long and short of it is that Boatwright is a cheap liar. It
turns out that Boatwright and liars like him are the very false
prophets the Bible warned us about! Miraculous, isn't it?!!
More Boatwright lies revealed:
http://tinyurl.com/d5beb
http://tinyurl.com/9zqo9
http://tinyurl.com/bx7dn
http://tinyurl.com/beqs7
http://tinyurl.com/73lnw
http://tinyurl.com/9wg2r
http://tinyurl.com/8z2dd
http://tinyurl.com/96vzm
http://tinyurl.com/e2edb
http://tinyurl.com/cmrts
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
God, having all eternity to work in and infinite resources to call
upon, made the world and declared it perfect only to realise a blink of
a god's eye later that he had screwed it up so badly that he had to
literally flush it!
He started over with a righteous man and seven family members who
apparently between them were infested with every human disease and
parasite the world now knows!
Despite this "perfect" salvation plan, this god *still* screwed it up
so badly that he then had to rape a young woman and kill her child in
an absurdly assinine and primitive attempt to salvage the appalling
disaster he'd created!
Now here we are 2,000 years later, the promised return of this
sacrifical lamb (which should have been when those alive back then were
still living) long overdue, and nothing has changed.
This is what's called absolute, irrefutable disproof of God.
Budikka
John, n: a receptacle frequently full of shit
Boatwright, n: a skilled builder of empty vessels
Budikka666
More lies!
Budikka
stoney
Oh they will, and slap them on the back and say; "Good try."
David Jensen
stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in
<2sufr1dgnrd92m4lj...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:37:45 -0600, David Jensen
><da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 05:23:26 GMT, in alt.atheism
>>Ananias917 <_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><h1h9r19rnqlp64hto...@4ax.com>:
>>>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:49:38 GMT, "Weatherwax"
>>><Weath...@worldnet.net> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"oldwetdog" <oldw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
>>>>
>>>>If religion preaches a lie, then religion is a lie.
>>>>
>>>>BTW: Have you read what Judge Jones said about the members of the Dover
>>>>Area School Board who "either testified inconsistently, or lied outright
>>>>under oath on several occasions"?
>>>
>>>Lied according to his definition of what truth is.
>>
>>Lied according to objective evidence. They lied about their own
>>behavior. They were inconsistent from one time to another. They tried to
>>hide their behavior. They were caught.
>>
>>There are no excuses for what they did. I cannot imagine that any
>>Christians would give them a pass for the lies they told or the way they
>>tried to hide their behavior.
>
>Oh they will, and slap them on the back and say; "Good try."
Sadly, there are too many such Christians. I wonder if any of those
Christians have bothered to learn the teachings of Jesus.
Weatherwax
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in
>>David Jensen
>><da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>>Ananias917 <_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>"Weatherwax" <Weath...@worldnet.net> wrote:
>>>>>"oldwetdog" <oldw...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>If religion preaches a lie, then religion is a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW: Have you read what Judge Jones said about the
>>>>>members of the Dover Area School Board who "either
>>>>>testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on
>>>>>several occasions"?
>>>>
>>>>Lied according to his definition of what truth is.
>>>
>>>Lied according to objective evidence. They lied about their own
>>>behavior. They were inconsistent from one time to another. They
>>>tried to hide their behavior. They were caught.
>>>
>>>There are no excuses for what they did. I cannot imagine that
>>>any Christians would give them a pass for the lies they told or
>>>the way they tried to hide their behavior.
>>
>>Oh they will, and slap them on the back and say; "Good try."
>
> Sadly, there are too many such Christians. I wonder if any of those
> Christians have bothered to learn the teachings of Jesus.
Many Christians feel that they are doing "Gawd's" work, therefore they are
above the law. They feel obligated to lie, steal, and even kill when their
interpretation of the Bible says it is right to do so. The rights of
others are completely ignored.
--Wax
Jani
Well, which is it? You can't imagine that any Christian would do that, or
that you know there are many who would?
See, this "oh, they're not *real* christians" nonsense is all very well when
it's just a back-and-forth on a newsgroup, but it becomes a tad more
important when you have a legal system which involves people swearing an
oath on a supposedly holy book, and then treating the oath, and therefore
the book, like dirt. Or doesn't "I swear by Almighty God" mean anything to
these people?
*sigh* No, don't bother. I'm sure they'd worked out some get-out clause
whereby Almighty God was going to nod wisely and excuse them from perjury,
because they had their fingers crossed, or somesuch.
Jani
David Jensen
"Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in <VqCdnefjtpx...@pipex.net>:
I should have said that I cannot imagine _why_ any Christians would give
them a pass for the lies they have told.
>See, this "oh, they're not *real* christians" nonsense is all very well when
>it's just a back-and-forth on a newsgroup, but it becomes a tad more
>important when you have a legal system which involves people swearing an
>oath on a supposedly holy book, and then treating the oath, and therefore
>the book, like dirt. Or doesn't "I swear by Almighty God" mean anything to
>these people?
I don't think it does, not when they have an agenda that allegedly has
to do with furthering their religion.
>*sigh* No, don't bother. I'm sure they'd worked out some get-out clause
>whereby Almighty God was going to nod wisely and excuse them from perjury,
>because they had their fingers crossed, or somesuch.
Probably.
johac
oldwetdog <oldw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On 29 Dec 2005 11:46:15 -0800, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>While certain colossally clueless congenital cretinists lie that
> >>there's no proof or evidence, the Theory of Evolution accumulates
> >>mountains of evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals the
> >>world over by people of all faiths, and is now honored by _Science_
> >>journal: "Research into how evolution works has been named top science
> >>achievement of 2005":
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm
> >
> >
> > That's the point. Science has long since progressed from "does/did
> > evolution happen?". That was settled 200 or more years ago. Because it
> > was the label given to the observations that fossils change and
> > diverge over time. For the last 150+ plus years it has been about
> > _how_ it happens, what causes it, what its mechanisms are etc.
> >
> > If it didn't happen, or its mechanisms were different, science would
> > have gone in a different direction. They can't grasp that science
> > merely follows where evidecne and investigation lead, and is all about
> > the utility of the explanations derived.
>
> If Science honors a Lie, then Science IS a lie.
Thank you for sharing. Now go back to swinging from your tree.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
sto...@the.net
Not to most of them.
>*sigh* No, don't bother. I'm sure they'd worked out some get-out clause
>whereby Almighty God was going to nod wisely and excuse them from perjury,
>because they had their fingers crossed, or somesuch.
Greater Good, Forgiven, and the rest of the drooling idiocies.
Fundies and trolls are urged to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed.
BDK
budi...@netscape.net says...
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> More lies!
>
> Budikka
>
>
I don't think Boaty knows the stuff he posts is untrue, I think he
totally buys it all.
I just think of him as a pretty high functioning loon.
BDK