Disproving Creation: More Clues to How Dinosaurs Evolved Into Flying Birds - Creationists Still No Clue

[Budikka666]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69m60$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
> four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>
> Budikka

There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.

Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds
in the skin. Whereas birds have feathers which grow
out of follicles.

Feathers and scales have no practical similarity and are
completely different in make-up and appearance. There
are no fossils that show scale to feather transition, that
are not embellished with biased, paleo-imagination.

For such to be possible there would have to be a vast
amount of entirely new, purposeful, complex and
specified, genetic information; which we know can
occur only in the fantasies of Darwinists.


Andrew

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:Uc6dnbXJlNUVjhTN...@earthlink.com:

> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69m60$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis
>> -of- four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>>
>> Budikka
>
> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.
>
> Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds
> in the skin. Whereas birds have feathers which grow
> out of follicles.
>
> Feathers and scales have no practical similarity and are
> completely different in make-up and appearance. There
> are no fossils that show scale to feather transition, that
> are not embellished with biased, paleo-imagination.
>

So explain dinosaurs with feathers.


http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

[Caranx latus]

On 10/25/2012 6:26 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69m60$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
>> four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>>
>> Budikka
>
> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.

Of course there isn't. Evolution is not something that individual
organisms undergo. Evolution occurs to populations and the currently
available evidence shows that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

> Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds
> in the skin.

Reptiles have a variety of ways in which scales are formed. Scales in
snakes are not formed in the same way that scales in crocodilians are
formed, for example.

> Whereas birds have feathers which grow
> out of follicles.

And yet there have been dinosaurs with feathers. Go figure.

Would it surprise you to find out that birds have feathers *and* scales?
It seems like something you wouldn't know. Heck, there are even some
mammals with scales. The genes of alligators contain instructions for
making feathers even though they're never expressed.

Have you considered that perhaps feathers didn't evolve from scales?

> Feathers and scales have no practical similarity and are
> completely different in make-up and appearance. There
> are no fossils that show scale to feather transition, that
> are not embellished with biased, paleo-imagination.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

> For such to be possible there would have to be a vast
> amount of entirely new, purposeful, complex and
> specified, genetic information; which we know can
> occur only in the fantasies of Darwinists.

I see you're still going on about "complex and specified". You have to
keep up with the times. Those who started the intelligent design
movement aren't really talking about it much anymore. They weren't able
to sneak their way into science in that way. Instead, they were caught
at it and intelligent design has since evolved into other strategies.

[The Magpie]

On 25/10/2012 11:26, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69m60$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>

> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.
>

Yes there is - since it happened.

>
> Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds in the
> skin.
>

Scales are not "folds in the skin" at all.

>
> Whereas birds have feathers which grow out of follicles.
>

Most feathers are follicular - which means they are part of the skin.

>
> Feathers and scales have no practical similarity
>

Yes they do - a lot of it.

>
> and are completely different in make-up and appearance.
>

Actually, they are very similar.

>
> There are no fossils that show scale to feather transition,
>

Yes there are. Quite a few - all the therapods for a start.

>
> that are not embellished with biased, paleo-imagination.
>

That would be *your* bias there Andrew.

>
> For such to be possible there would have to be a vast amount of
> entirely new, purposeful, complex and specified, genetic
> information;
>

No there would not.

>
> which we know can occur only in the fantasies of Darwinists.
>

You "know" no such thing since the claim is simply wrong.

[Ken]

On Oct 24, 2:22 pm, Budikka666 <Budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysi...
> four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>
> Budikka

They've never had a clue...................to anything

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Uc6dnbXJlNUVjhTN...@earthlink.com>,

And yet birds DID evolve from dinosaurs, in fact might be called
dinosaurs themselves.

You lose. Just because you want very badly for something to be true is
not a recipe for reality.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Andrew]

"The Magpie" wrote in message news:rPcis.31900$nB6....@fx21.am4...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
>>> four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>>
>> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.
>>
> Yes there is - since it happened.

This is your faith.

>> Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds in the
>> skin.
>>
> Scales are not "folds in the skin" at all.

""Scales arise from dome-like folds in the skin""
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12616573

>> Whereas birds have feathers which grow out of follicles.
>>
> Most feathers are follicular - which means they are part of the skin.
>>
>> Feathers and scales have no practical similarity
>>
> Yes they do - a lot of it.
>>
>> and are completely different in make-up and appearance.
>>
> Actually, they are very similar.
>>
>> There are no fossils that show scale to feather transition,
>>
> Yes there are. Quite a few - all the therapods for a start.

This is a story. It is actually part of a grand scientific hoax.

"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
of cold fusion."

Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00263.html.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-7D401C...@news.giganews.com...
>> "Andrew>

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
>> > four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>> >
>> > Budikka
>>
>> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.
>>
>> Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds
>> in the skin. Whereas birds have feathers which grow
>> out of follicles.
>>
>> Feathers and scales have no practical similarity and are
>> completely different in make-up and appearance. There
>> are no fossils that show scale to feather transition, that
>> are not embellished with biased, paleo-imagination.
>>
>> For such to be possible there would have to be a vast
>> amount of entirely new, purposeful, complex and
>> specified, genetic information; which we know can
>> occur only in the fantasies of Darwinists.
>
> And yet birds DID evolve from dinosaurs,

This is true - in the fantasies of Darwinists.

> in fact might be called dinosaurs themselves.

See above.

> Just because you want very badly for something to
> be true is not a recipe for reality.

Yet it is for Darwinists, and all who believe them.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" rote in message news:XnsA0F748B128FC8...@216.196.121.131...

If an artist can draw dinosaurs with feathers, that doesn't
mean that it was so. There are no fossils that show scale
to feather transition that are not embellished with biased,
paleo-imagination.

[Tom McDonald]

Hmm. 13 years ago. There has been a lot of research in the meantime. All
of it supports the theory that birds arose from theropod dinosaurs.

Got anything newer?

[Tom McDonald]

There are, however, good fossils of actual dinosaurs with actual
feathers. How'd they get there?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mKqdnT0N4Z7RURTN...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-7D401C...@news.giganews.com...
> >> "Andrew>
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of
> >> > -
> >> > four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
> >> >
> >> > Budikka
> >>
> >> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.
> >>
> >> Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds
> >> in the skin. Whereas birds have feathers which grow
> >> out of follicles.
> >>
> >> Feathers and scales have no practical similarity and are
> >> completely different in make-up and appearance. There
> >> are no fossils that show scale to feather transition, that
> >> are not embellished with biased, paleo-imagination.
> >>
> >> For such to be possible there would have to be a vast
> >> amount of entirely new, purposeful, complex and
> >> specified, genetic information; which we know can
> >> occur only in the fantasies of Darwinists.
> >
> > And yet birds DID evolve from dinosaurs,
>
> This is true - in the fantasies of Darwinists.

Who are these Darwinists you speak of?

> > in fact might be called dinosaurs themselves.
>
> See above.

Who are these Darwinists you speak of?

> > Just because you want very badly for something to
> > be true is not a recipe for reality.
>
> Yet it is for Darwinists, and all who believe them.

Who are these Darwinists you speak of?

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:_9kis.2248$Be....@newsfe13.iad...
> Andrew wrote:

The hoax is not dead, and the masses believe what they are told.

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ebkis.2249$Be....@newsfe13.iad...

Folks, someone is here who claims to have the evidence!

Let's see what it is.


OK. Go ahead and present your evidence now.

Thank you.

Fantasy is not acceptable.

[Tom McDonald]

You know, Andrew, if you don't have any newer data, why not just say
that? You claim there is a hoax here. Your evidence, here at least, is
13 years old. There has been advances in the study of the origin of
birds, and the evidence from those studies support the theory of
dino-to-bird evolution.

Got anything more recent to dispute that?

[Caranx latus]

And yet, we have fossils which have crystal clear imprints of feathers
and yet the original animals was just as clearly a dinosaur.

[Tom McDonald]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/feathered_dinosaurs.htm

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds.htm

http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-feathered-dinosaurs-1.10933

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/25/1203238109.abstract

That should be enough to get you started.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <T6OdnTcbC-EmShTN...@earthlink.com>,

<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-010X(19990815)285:
2%3C146::AID-JEZ7%3E3.0.CO;2-A/abstract;jsessionid=048872FB09ABB5E35F7360
2E8EA89218.d01t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on
+27+October+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essent
ial+maintenance>

<http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/22247928>

<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...317.1721T>

<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.378..774N>

Hopp, Thomas J., Orsen, Mark J. (2004) "Feathered Dragons: Studies on
the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds. Chapter 11. Dinosaur Brooding
Behavior and the Origin of Flight Feathers" Currie, Koppelhaus, Shugar,
Wright. Indiana University Press. Bloomington, IN. USA.

<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10382/abstract?systemMes
sage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+27+October+from+10%3A00-12
%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance>

<http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/15/science-dinosaur
-feathers.html>

<http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110915/full/news.2011.539.html>

von Meyer, H. (1861). Archaeopteryx litographica (Vogel-Feder) und
Pterodactylus von Solenhofen. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie,
Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde. 1861: 678­679, plate V [Article in
German] Fulltext at Google Books.

<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/nature10288.html>

Ji Q., Ji S. (1996). "On discovery of the earliest bird fossil in China
and the origin of birds". Chinese Geology 10 (233): 30­33.


Those should keep you busy for a while. Have fun.

[Caranx latus]

Here's a photograph of a Sinosauropteryx fossil. It's a theropod
dinosaur, not a bird. It's also covered with something other than scales
as you can see along the dorsal surface of the body and on both sides of
the tail. The interpretation that's been made after close study is that
these are feathers.

Wikimedia: <http://bit.ly/ap0qwH>

Archaeopteryx is not a bird. The existence of wings and a tail made of
feathers is very clear.

Wikimedia: <http://bitly.com/gPrQf0>

I'm not going to bother digging out any other images for you since
you'll only deny them like you'll deny these.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:9fednVNGjJEUShTN...@earthlink.com:

>
> The hoax is not dead, and the masses believe what they are told.

That is what keeps religion going, despite
facts and common sense to the contrary.

[The Magpie]

On 26/10/2012 00:34, Andrew wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:rPcis.31900$nB6....@fx21.am4...

>> [snip]

>>>
>> Yes there is - since it happened.
>
> This is your faith.
>

No Andrew, it is evidence based science. It is *your* claims that are
based on nothing more than faith.

>
>> Scales are not "folds in the skin" at all.
>
> ""Scales arise from dome-like folds in the skin""
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12616573
>

Scales *IN_EMBRYONIC_DEVELOPMENT* arise from skin structures but that
does not mean they are "folds in the skin" in any way at all.

You were and are wrong here Andrew. Again.

>
>> Yes there are. Quite a few - all the therapods for a start.
>
> This is a story. It is actually part of a grand scientific hoax.
>

Faith claims from you again Andrew.

>
> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous

> scientists..[snip]"

>
> Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds
>

The snag is that in this clip Olson was discussing Archaeoraptor
liaoningensis and particularly the fossil discovery and recording
because of extreme fossil smuggling then prevalent in China.

You really should look a little wider than Conservapeadia you know
Andrew - you may find that even he (a creationist) changed his mind.

[Tom McDonald]

Found this:

"Storrs L. Olson, prominent ornithologist and curator of Birds at the
Smithsonian, Olson has probably undertaken the most detailed review of
the fossil record of birds ever, (see Olson 1985). Olson's contributions
to paleornithology are difficult to summarize, his work ranging from
magisterial reviews of the anatomy and evolution of flightlessness, to
descriptions of Lower Paleogene neornithine mosaics such as Limnofregata
azygosternon. In the past decade Olson has gained a degree of notoreity
for his bitter opposition to the theropod origin of birds, including an
unprofessional and scathing open letter to National Geographic which has
presented a treasure trove of quotes to mine for creationists."

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Storrs_L._Olson

Note the 'unprofessional and scathing' and the 'treasure trove of quotes
to mine for creationists'.

Apparently, aside from the quotation Andrew uses being well over a
decade old, it was, at the time, not widely supported except among
creationists with an axe to grind.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Storrs_L._Olson

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:i9lis.629$kP4...@newsfe15.iad...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Tom McDonald" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:

I specifically stated right here, that fantasy was not acceptable.

Yet Tom cites links that are filled with fantasy. Let's check it out.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

"Feather structures are thought to have proceeded from simple hollow
filaments through several stages of increasing complexity, ending with
the large, deeply rooted, feathers with strong pens (rachis), barbs and
barbules that birds display today."

In other words, "We fantasize that this is how it happened."

Also note the phrase, "several stages of increasing complexity"
which appeals to the fallacy of negative entropy.

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/feathered_dinosaurs.htm

"The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised
the obvious possibility that some dinosaurs had feathers."

In other words, "They MUST have feathers, BECAUSE, they are
related to birds."

> http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds.htm

" To show how tricky this issue is, here's the standard picture of bird evolution:
small, running theropods (for the sake of argument, let's say raptors) evolved
feathers as a way of keeping warm and attracting mates. As these feathers grew
larger and more ornate, they provided an unexpected bonus: a split-second of
extra "lift" when their owner pounced on prey or ran away from larger predators.
Multiply this scenario by countless generations, and you have a solid theory for
the origin of avian flight."

Now if that isn't fantasy, then what is? They even say it's a "tricky issue"
because you have to have an active imagination to fantasize such a thing.

> http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-feathered-dinosaurs-1.10933

> http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-feathered-dinosaurs-1.10933

"Palaeontologist Paul Barrett of London's Natural History Museum agrees
that the structures on Sciurumimus are probably protofeathers. Although
additional geochemical work is needed to study the features' details, Barrett
says, the fossilized wisps are very similar to the fuzz seen on other dinosaurs.
But he notes that the presence of these filaments among all dinosaurs is
"speculation".

Wisps and fuss, are -not- feathers.

And "probably protofeathers" is speculation. Or --> fantasy.

> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/25/1203238109.abstract

"Evidence for filaments or feathers in noncoelurosaurian theropods is
circumstantial and debated."

We now know that what was said to be 'protofeathers' in Sinosauropteryx
are simply degraded collagen fibers, and not protofeathers. Thus illustrating
the desperation that some have had to promote the dino-bird hoax..
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1620/1823.short

> That should be enough to get you started.

Enough to show that the dino-bird story is a delusion, fantasy and a hoax.

[Andrew]

"Caranx latus" wrote in message news:znlis.26931$oS1....@fed15.iad...

These structures have been found to be degraded collagen fibers, and not feathers
or protofeathers. http://alturl.com/wmkbj

> Archaeopteryx is not a bird. The existence of wings and a tail made of feathers is very clear.

"When you look at the data with a higher degree of analytical rigour it supports the traditional
view that Archaeopteryx is a bird," -- Dr Paul Barrett, dinosaur researcher,
London's Natural History Museum.
http://alturl.com/u3gip

> Wikimedia: <http://bitly.com/gPrQf0>
>
> I'm not going to bother digging out any other images for
> you since you'll only deny them like you'll deny these.

I don't deny them. I simply deny false interpretations.

[Budikka666]

On Oct 25, 5:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69m60$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysi...

> > four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>
> > Budikka
>
> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.

Why don't you prove that in a formal debate with me where you will be
requried to bring on the science instead of simply preaching to us and
then RUNNING every time you're put on the spot, thereby proving to us
that your omnipotent god is a lie?

> Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds
> in the skin.

LOL! Seriously? Are you unaware that feathers are composed of
*precisely* the same material as these "folds in the skin?

BTW, dinosus were unlike any modern reptiles. Many of them were warm-
nblooded, like birds. Tyrannosaurus rex's genome most closely
resembled modern chickens, not modern reptiles

> Whereas birds have feathers which grow
> out of follicles.
> Feathers and scales have no practical similarity

LIE. As I mentioned before, they are composed of *exactly* the same
material.

> completely different in make-up and appearance.

So chickens don't have hair when they're first born? They don't have
these "folds in the skin" on their legs? The fossilized "feathers"
which ahve been discovered don't sound just like those "feathers"
sported by, for example, the cassowary?

Feathers have been discovered in every stage in the fossil record
running from "reptile folds in the skin" to modern feathers - an
evolutionary trend. Clearly you're pulling this out of your dumb ass
without even having read the science. How stupid is that?

> There
> are no fossils that show scale to feather transition,

LIE
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

And in the professional science journals, 69,500 results for feather
AND evolution:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=feather+evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=

So will you and your omnipotent god formally debate me on this topic
right here or will you RUN as you have done countless times before?
Yes or no?

Andrew-a-Blank's shameful record of cowardice for Christ:
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e9b89ac33e01ce5b?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/836bea1f79468d9b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/728ceae4eb1d55e3?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3a31410d460b908e?hl=en&scoring=d&

Budikka

[Tom McDonald]

You seem to have missed this:

"List of dinosaur species preserved with evidence of feathers

"Jinfengopteryx elegans fossil
A number of non-avialan dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered.
Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following species, listed in
the order currently accepted evidence was first published. In all
examples, the evidence described consists of feather impressions, except
those genera inferred to have had feathers based on skeletal or chemical
evidence, such as the presence of quill knobs (the anchor points for
wing feathers on the forelimb) or a pygostyle (the fused vertebrae at
the tail tip which often supports large feathers)."

Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: quill knobs)[12][13]
Pelecanimimus polydon? (1994)[14]
Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)[15]
Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)[16]
GMV 2124 (1997)[17]
Caudipteryx zoui (1998)[18]
Rahonavis ostromi (inferred 1998: quill knobs; possibly avialan[19])[20]
Shuvuuia deserti (1999)[1]
Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)[21]
Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)[22]
Caudipteryx dongi (2000)[23]
Caudipteryx sp. (2000)[24]
Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)[25]
Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)[26]
Psittacosaurus sp.? (2002)[27]
Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)[28]
Dilong paradoxus (2004)[29]
Sinornithosaurus haoiana (2004)[30]
Pedopenna daohugouensis (2005; possibly avialan[31])[32]
Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)[33][34]
Juravenator starki (2006)[35][36]
Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)[37]
Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)[5]
Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed
2010)[38][39]
Anchiornis huxleyi (2009)[40]
Tianyulong confuciusi? (2009)[41]
Concavenator corcovatus? (inferred 2010: quill knobs?)[42]
Xiaotingia zhengi (2011)[43]
Yutyrannus huali (2012)[44]
Microraptor hanqingi (2012)[45]
Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)[46]
Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)[47]

> Also note the phrase, "several stages of increasing complexity"
> which appeals to the fallacy of negative entropy.

'Negative entropy' is no problem in a system that has external energy
inputs--like, oh, say, for example, Earth.

>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/feathered_dinosaurs.htm
>
> "The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised
> the obvious possibility that some dinosaurs had feathers."
>
> In other words, "They MUST have feathers, BECAUSE, they are
> related to birds."

You missed this, too:

"Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was
not until the early 1990’s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were
discovered with preserved feathers.
Today there are more than a dozen genera of dinosaurs with fossil
feathers, all of which are theropods.
Most are from the Yixian formation in China.
The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have even tested
positive for beta keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in
immunological tests. Particularly well-preserved (and legitimate)
fossils of feathered dinosaurs were discovered during the 1990s and 2000s."

>> http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds.htm
>
> " To show how tricky this issue is, here's the standard picture of bird evolution:
> small, running theropods (for the sake of argument, let's say raptors) evolved
> feathers as a way of keeping warm and attracting mates. As these feathers grew
> larger and more ornate, they provided an unexpected bonus: a split-second of
> extra "lift" when their owner pounced on prey or ran away from larger predators.
> Multiply this scenario by countless generations, and you have a solid theory for
> the origin of avian flight."
>
> Now if that isn't fantasy, then what is? They even say it's a "tricky issue"
> because you have to have an active imagination to fantasize such a thing.

You missed this:

"Too Many Feathered Dinosaurs

"Another problem with tracing the exact course of dinosaur-bird
evolution is that so many likely ancestors technically belonged to
different families. While all feathered dinosaurs that we know of were
true theropods, some are classified as raptors, some as oviraptors, some
as troodonts, some as ornithomimids and some as, well, your guess is as
good as the experts' (it's even possible that juvenile tyrannosaurs had
a fine feather coating). The key thing is, all these creatures resembled
each other more closely than they resembled the typical genera in their
extended families (for example, Sinornithosaurus looks a lot more like
the troodont Sinovenator than it does its fellow raptor Deinonychus).

"Further complicating matters, the behavior of small, feathered
dinosaurs seems to have been remarkably adaptable. Paleontologists have
yet to discover any meat-eating ornithopods (these dinosaurs were
strictly vegetarian), but at least two feathered "therizinosaur"
theropods--Incisivosaurus and Falcarius--appear to have been plant
eaters, and the large, ostrich-like ornithomimids were probably omnivorous."

>> http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-feathered-dinosaurs-1.10933
>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-feathered-dinosaurs-1.10933
>
> "Palaeontologist Paul Barrett of London's Natural History Museum agrees
> that the structures on Sciurumimus are probably protofeathers. Although
> additional geochemical work is needed to study the features' details, Barrett
> says, the fossilized wisps are very similar to the fuzz seen on other dinosaurs.
> But he notes that the presence of these filaments among all dinosaurs is
> "speculation".
>
> Wisps and fuss, are -not- feathers.
>
> And "probably protofeathers" is speculation. Or --> fantasy.

You missed this:

"Feathers didn’t start with birds. Plumage of various sorts — from
simple fuzz to the complex structures used for flight — adorned
dinosaurs first, and was only later inherited by birds. And if a
beautifully preserved juvenile dinosaur unearthed in the Jurassic strata
of Germany is any indication, it is possible that all dinosaurs bore
patches of filamentous feathers.

"Since the discovery of the fluffy theropod Sinosauropteryx in 1996,
palaeontologists have recognized more than 30 types of feathered
dinosaur. Most of these are coelurosaurs — a disparate group of
theropods that includes not only the fearsome tyrannosaurs,
sickle-clawed deinonychosaurs and bizarre therizinosaurs, but also birds."

>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/25/1203238109.abstract
>
> "Evidence for filaments or feathers in noncoelurosaurian theropods is
> circumstantial and debated."
>
> We now know that what was said to be 'protofeathers' in Sinosauropteryx
> are simply degraded collagen fibers, and not protofeathers. Thus illustrating
> the desperation that some have had to promote the dino-bird hoax..
> http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1620/1823.short

Note that the questions are about a different branch of theropod
dinosaurs than the branch that clearly shows feathers.

You missed this, which came before the snippet you quoted:

"Recent discoveries in Asia have greatly increased our understanding of
the evolution of dinosaurs’ integumentary structures, revealing a
previously unexpected diversity of “protofeathers” and feathers.
However, all theropod dinosaurs with preserved feathers reported so far
are coelurosaurs. Evidence for filaments or feathers in

noncoelurosaurian theropods is circumstantial and debated."

>> That should be enough to get you started.
>
> Enough to show that the dino-bird story is a delusion, fantasy and a hoax.

Interesting, then, that you can only support your 'argument' with
quotemined snippets that don't include the actual hard evidence for
feathers in dinosaurs.

Why do you think it's OK to lie? Could it be that you really can't
support your views, and need to lie in order not to look at the truth?

[Caranx latus]

You're equating thinking with fantasy? Wow. Sucks to be you.

> Also note the phrase, "several stages of increasing complexity"
> which appeals to the fallacy of negative entropy.

"Fallacy of negatve entropy"? What's that? A fantasy of your own creation?

>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/feathered_dinosaurs.htm
>
> "The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised
> the obvious possibility that some dinosaurs had feathers."
>
> In other words, "They MUST have feathers, BECAUSE, they are
> related to birds."

Perhaps some remedial English classes would assist you with not making
wild misinterpretations of material that you happen to read. Seriously.
Get help.

>> http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds.htm
>
> " To show how tricky this issue is, here's the standard picture of bird evolution:
> small, running theropods (for the sake of argument, let's say raptors) evolved
> feathers as a way of keeping warm and attracting mates. As these feathers grew
> larger and more ornate, they provided an unexpected bonus: a split-second of
> extra "lift" when their owner pounced on prey or ran away from larger predators.
> Multiply this scenario by countless generations, and you have a solid theory for
> the origin of avian flight."
>
> Now if that isn't fantasy, then what is? They even say it's a "tricky issue"
> because you have to have an active imagination to fantasize such a thing.
>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-feathered-dinosaurs-1.10933
>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-feathered-dinosaurs-1.10933
>
> "Palaeontologist Paul Barrett of London's Natural History Museum agrees
> that the structures on Sciurumimus are probably protofeathers. Although
> additional geochemical work is needed to study the features' details, Barrett
> says, the fossilized wisps are very similar to the fuzz seen on other dinosaurs.
> But he notes that the presence of these filaments among all dinosaurs is
> "speculation".
>
> Wisps and fuss, are -not- feathers.

Really?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daune_down_feather.jpg>

> And "probably protofeathers" is speculation. Or --> fantasy.

Or an inference from the available data. The only reason you call it
fantasy is because you desperately want it to be false.

>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/25/1203238109.abstract
>
> "Evidence for filaments or feathers in noncoelurosaurian theropods is
> circumstantial and debated."
>
> We now know that what was said to be 'protofeathers' in Sinosauropteryx
> are simply degraded collagen fibers, and not protofeathers. Thus illustrating
> the desperation that some have had to promote the dino-bird hoax..
> http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1620/1823.short

That's a fair point. Reading more deeply into the issue shows that there
is some disagreement among paleontologists as to whether the structures
are protofeathers or collagen fibers. The existence of preserved
melanosomes (i.e. pigment cells) speaks to the structures being
protofeathers as collagen doesn't exhibit color.

Like I said, it's a fair point. That there is a controversy doesn't
mean, however, that you get to claim that the 'protofeather' side of the
argument is a fantasy. A more reasonable approach would be say that the
situation is currently unresolved. We can't use Sinosauropteryx as
definite support for our argument, but neither can you.

>> That should be enough to get you started.
>
> Enough to show that the dino-bird story is a delusion, fantasy and a hoax.

Your desperation has not demonstrated that.

[Caranx latus]

There is nevertheless evidence that these may be protofeathers,
specifically the preservation of pigment cells which collagen doesn't have.

I have to withdraw the use of Sinosauropteryx as definitive support for
'dinosaurs that had feathers' argument. However, the existence of a
controversy among paleontologists doesn't permit you to use it as
support for your case either.

>> Archaeopteryx is not a bird. The existence of wings and a tail made of feathers is very clear.
>
> "When you look at the data with a higher degree of analytical rigour it supports the traditional
> view that Archaeopteryx is a bird," -- Dr Paul Barrett, dinosaur researcher,
> London's Natural History Museum.
> http://alturl.com/u3gip

Thanks for the link. You obviously didn't read the entire article.

Quote: This combination of avian and reptilian characteristics saw it
positioned at a key spot in the branching off of birds from dinosaurs in
the tree of life, and provided hard evidence to back Darwin's theory of
evolution by natural selection.

Quote: "There is now a very fine line between birds and bird-like
dinosaurs, with only some subtle differences between them," added Dr
Barrett. "As a result it's not surprising that the positions of these
animals will occasionally flip around in the tree as they are really
very similar."

There may be some argument about exactly where Archaeopteryx falls but
there is no disagreement that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

>> Wikimedia: <http://bitly.com/gPrQf0>
>>
>> I'm not going to bother digging out any other images for
>> you since you'll only deny them like you'll deny these.
>
> I don't deny them. I simply deny false interpretations.

You will deny anything that suggests that birds evolved from dinosaurs
regardless of the truth.

<http://bitly.com/qwKtxj>
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/1590>

[Tom McDonald]

On 10/28/2012 9:17 AM, Caranx latus wrote:
> On 10/28/2012 5:10 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:i9lis.629$kP4...@newsfe15.iad...

<snip>

>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/25/1203238109.abstract
>>
>> "Evidence for filaments or feathers in noncoelurosaurian theropods is
>> circumstantial and debated."
>>
>> We now know that what was said to be 'protofeathers' in Sinosauropteryx
>> are simply degraded collagen fibers, and not protofeathers. Thus
>> illustrating
>> the desperation that some have had to promote the dino-bird hoax..
>> http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1620/1823.short
>
> That's a fair point. Reading more deeply into the issue shows that there
> is some disagreement among paleontologists as to whether the structures
> are protofeathers or collagen fibers. The existence of preserved
> melanosomes (i.e. pigment cells) speaks to the structures being
> protofeathers as collagen doesn't exhibit color.
>
> Like I said, it's a fair point. That there is a controversy doesn't
> mean, however, that you get to claim that the 'protofeather' side of the
> argument is a fantasy. A more reasonable approach would be say that the
> situation is currently unresolved. We can't use Sinosauropteryx as
> definite support for our argument, but neither can you.

Note that Andrew seems to want us to focus on the "noncoelurosaurian
theropods" point here, and to think that this somehow says something
important about the existence of feathers in the coelurosaurian
theropods. It doesn't, of course.

The issue here is that most or all of the previously known instances of
frank feathers on dinosaurs were found in coelurosaurian lineage. The
article suggests that *another* lineage of theropod dinosaurs might have
had feathers *as well*.

He seems to want to confuse the issue, though it is entirely possible
that he himself is confused on the issue. He certainly is either
confused or lying about the larger issue of feathered dinosaurs.

<snip>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <zFbjs.4129$td7....@newsfe22.iad>,

There are new hypotheses on the feather issue:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20079390>

"Research suggests that not only did wings evolve in dinosaurs earlier
than previously thought, they may have evolved merely for courtship
displays."

[The Magpie]

On 28/10/2012 11:08, Andrew wrote:
> [snip]

>
> These structures have been found to be degraded collagen fibers, and not feathers
> or protofeathers. http://alturl.com/wmkbj
>

Feathers *are* collagen fibres.

[Andrew]

"The Magpie" wrote in message news:5tyjs.46239$g62....@fx06.am4...

Keratin

[Budikka666]

I see you running away ***AGAIN*** admitting to everyone on Usenet
that your fake god is utterly worthless. Thank you once again for
helping me to prove how deluded you thests are.

Budikka

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:25:12 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69m60$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
>
> > four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/

> > Budikka
>
> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.
> Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds
> in the skin. Whereas birds have feathers which grow
> out of follicles.

Tell that to birds like ostriches which have scales on their legs
and feathers over most of their bodies.

>
> Feathers and scales have no practical similarity and are
> completely different in make-up and appearance. There
> are no fossils that show scale to feather transition, that
> are not embellished with biased, paleo-imagination.
>

> For such to be possible there would have to be a vast
> amount of entirely new, purposeful, complex and
> specified, genetic information; which we know can
> occur only in the fantasies of Darwinists.

Tell it to an ostrich, ignorant Andrew.

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:e56a853e-b934-4b39...@i8g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...

>I see you running away ***AGAIN***

No, I'm right here.

> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
> your fake god is utterly worthless.

You may not know WHY He loves you.

That doesn't mean He's worthless.


> Budikka



Andrew

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:7MidnQGXu55HpRLN...@earthlink.com:

Just non-existent.

[John Locke]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:19:50 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:e56a853e-b934-4b39...@i8g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>
>No, I'm right here.
>
>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>
>You may not know WHY He loves you.
>

...and even if your god monster was real, I wouldn't want to know
why some degenerate, genocidal spook "loves" me.
This "God loves you" thing that you Christian keep pushing makes my
skin crawl...ugh.

>That doesn't mean He's worthless.

...yes it does.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA0FBDAFED8880...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>
>>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>
>> No, I'm right here.
>>
>>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>>
>> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>>
>> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>
> Just non-existent.

Do you know everything there is in this vast
universe?

If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
is non-existent or not.

If you did, then *you* would be God, having
omniscience..which is possessed only by God.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kofu885t6v75nqg7e...@4ax.com>,

Yep.

Even the worst abusers claim to love their victims. Which is, sadly, one
of the reasons so many never leave their abusers.

> >That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>
> ...yes it does.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <FZadnVOTZ7ea3BLN...@earthlink.com>,

But until there's some actual evidence that it exists, one is rather
silly in wasting time worshipping it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:57:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <FZadnVOTZ7ea3BLN...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>> news:XnsA0FBDAFED8880...@216.196.121.131...
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>> >>
>> >> No, I'm right here.
>> >>
>> >>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>> >>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>> >>
>> >> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>> >>
>> >> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>> >
>> > Just non-existent.
>>
>> Do you know everything there is in this vast
>> universe?
>>
>> If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
>> is non-existent or not.
>>
>> If you did, then *you* would be God, having
>> omniscience..which is possessed only by God.

Which once again presumes what the moron is supposed to be proving.

>But until there's some actual evidence that it exists, one is rather
>silly in wasting time worshipping it.

Or rudely and stupidly talking as if it were real.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 30 Oct, 02:52, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in messagenews:XnsA0FBDAFED8880...@216.196.121.131...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>
> >>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>
> >> No, I'm right here.
>
> >>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
> >>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>
> >> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>
> >> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>
> >   Just non-existent.
>
> Do you know everything there is in this vast
> universe?

No human knows everything there is in this vast universe.

That includes you.

You insist there is a god.

But you have no evidence that one exists.

>
> If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
> is non-existent or not.

And by the same reasoning you cannot prove one exists either.

>
> If you did, then *you* would be God, having
> omniscience..which is possessed only by God.

You are not god, you cannot prove your god exists.

Even your arguments in favour of a god fall apart when your
"reasoning" is applied to them.

[1connu]

Andrew a �crit :

> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69m60$ael$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
>> four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>>
>> Budikka
>
> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.
>

But a god with infinite power from nothing, no problem !

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:FZadnVOTZ7ea3BLN...@earthlink.com:

Replace "god" with "Thor" and the
emptiness of your argument becomes plain.

[The Magpie]

Do you know the difference, Andrew - personally I doubt it, but just
for you I shall tell you:

Collagen is fibrous polypeptide chains with a left handed helix where
the "helix of the helical chain" (the superhelix) is left handed.

Keratin is exactly the same *except* the superhelix is right handed.

Why the difference? Because they are found in slightly different
places, that's all. In every other respect, keratin *is* collagen.

[Ken]

On Oct 29, 7:52 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote this load
of crapola:

> Do you know everything there is.....

You don't know shit, FOOL

[Andrew]

"The Magpie" wrote in message news:02Tjs.74969$YJ1....@fx09.am4...

Although there is similarity in the molecular structure of collagen and
keratin, their constructions are different, and as you say, they are found
in different places.

If we are talking about feathers, then we would say that they are
composed of *keratin* (not collagen). More specifically, Beta-
keratin.


Andrew

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA0FC4AB486471...@216.196.121.131...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:

>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm right here.
>>>>
>>>>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>>>>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>>>>
>>>> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>>>
>>> Just non-existent.
>>
>> Do you know everything there is in this vast
>> universe?
>>
>> If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
>> is non-existent or not.
>>
>> If you did, then *you* would be God, having
>> omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>
> Replace "god" with "Thor" and the
> emptiness of your argument becomes plain.

Thor is dead, and cannot be compared with
the living God. http://www.p2l.it/1fm

[Ken]

On Oct 30, 11:30 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote: nothing
worth repeating, as usual

You STILL don't know shit, FOOL

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 30, 6:30 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in messagenews:XnsA0FC4AB486471...@216.196.121.131...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>
> >>>>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>
> >>>> No, I'm right here.
>
> >>>>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
> >>>>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>
> >>>> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>
> >>>> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>
> >>>   Just non-existent.
>
> >> Do you know everything there is in this vast
> >> universe?
>
> >> If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
> >> is non-existent or not.
>
> >> If you did, then *you* would be God, having
> >> omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>
> >    Replace "god" with "Thor" and the
> > emptiness of your argument becomes plain.
>
> Thor is dead,

Show us the body.

> and cannot be compared with
> the living God.

Show us the body.

http://www.p2l.it/1fm

[Syd M.]

On Oct 29, 10:52 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in messagenews:XnsA0FBDAFED8880...@216.196.121.131...

Nope.
Word games won't make us believe, Andrew.

[Jason]

In article
<c1251b08-64df-48ce...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, "Syd
M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 29, 10:52=A0pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Mitchell Holman" wrote in messagenews:XnsA0FBDAFED8880nomailverizonnet@2=

> 16.196.121.131...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >
> > >>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
> >
> > >> No, I'm right here.
> >
> > >>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
> > >>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
> >
> > >> You may not know WHY He loves you.
> >
> > >> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
> >

> > > =A0 Just non-existent.

> >
> > Do you know everything there is in this vast
> > universe?
> >
> > If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
> > is non-existent or not.
> >
> > If you did, then *you* would be God, having
> > omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>
> Nope.
> Word games won't make us believe, Andrew.

If you end up in hell due to be hard headed, it's your own fault and you
have no one to blame except for yourself.

See John 3:16

[Budikka666]

On Oct 29, 9:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:e56a853e-b934-4b39...@i8g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...

> >I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>
> No, I'm right here.

No, you are RUNNING from my debate offer, too terrifed to even have
the guts to say you dare not debate me. You have thereby proven that
even a lowlife piece of Christian trash like you openly admits his
omnipotent creator is a utterly useless when it comes right down to
the wire.

But please be my guest and go ahead being the pathetic coward you are,
because eveyr message you post plays right into my hands.

Budikka

[Syd M.]

On Oct 30, 2:30 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in messagenews:XnsA0FC4AB486471...@216.196.121.131...

Empty assertion.

[Budikka666]

On Oct 30, 3:34 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> If you end up in hell due to be hard headed, it's your own fault and you
> have no one to blame except for yourself.

So are you volunteering to step in where Andrew has fled and make his
case for him? He asserted that "There is no way for a dinosaur to
evolve into a bird." I challenged Andrew to formally debate this
claim and he ran.

Are you willing to support this claim?

Failing that, can you formally debate me on the existence of this god
of yours?

Or will you run like eveyr other creationist has done?

Budikka

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-30101...@66-53-217-66.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Dear God,

This year:

400,000 children will contract HIV
30 children will die of AIDS every hour
95,000 children will die of cancer
1.5 million will die of diarrhea
175,000 will drown
45,000 will die of poisoning
96,000 will burn to death
47,000 will fall to their deaths.

Why do you hate children?

[Syd M.]

On Oct 30, 4:34 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <c1251b08-64df-48ce-a4b7-5683d4f6a...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, "Syd

<Yawn> Empty threat noted and rejected.

[Jason]

In article
<28a0455d-1fd6-434f...@b15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:

I will respond to your posts but not engage in a debate. I have anxiety
and also do NOT have a degree in a sciene related field. I once debated an
atheist college professor and did not win that debate since he kept
discussing so called life forms such as archaeoraptor that I had never
heard of prior to the debate. That same professor later debated Duane Gish
Ph.D. and that professor lost that debate. Dr. Gish did know all about the
various life forms that the professor discussed during that debate.



http://www.icr.org/article/archaeoraptor-featured-dinosaur-from-national-geog/Articles

 

Archaeoraptor: Featured Dinosaur from National Geographic Doesn't Fly
by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
Download Archaeoraptor: Featured Dinosaur from National Geographic Doesn't
Fly PDF
National Geographic Society is widely known as one of the most important
promoters of the theory of organic evolution in the eyes of the public.
Louis and Richard Leakey might have remained obscure paleoanthropologists
except that their research on fossil evidence for human evolution was
generously funded and heavily publicized by the National Geographic
Society. Now the idea that birds are simply feathered theropod dinosaurs
is the prominent evolutionary doctrine being promoted by the society.
Recent scientific research funded by National Geographic concerns what
have been called "feathered dinosaurs" from lower Cretaceous strata of the
Liaoning province in China. This new research program appears to be
directed specifically at changing what the world believes about dinosaurs
and their relationship to birds. A recent episode concerns the discovery
and promotion of a particular Chinese fossil appearing to be a combination
of bird and theropod dinosaur. Is it actually evolution's missing link
between dinosaurs and birds? The episode concerning the fossil provides an
extraordinary peek into the peculiar ideology and journalistic slant of a
cadre of zealous scientists and the National Geographic Society that
promotes them.
The Fossil's Discovery and Interpretation
On October 15, 1999, at a press conference in Washington D.C., the
National Geographic Society announced the discovery and interpretation of
the newest fossil called Archaeoraptor liaoningensis (meaning "ancient
bird of prey from Liaoning").1 The press conference coincided with the
November 1999 issue of National Geographic magazine and its article
"Feathers for T. rex? New birdlike fossils are missing links in dinosaur
evolution."2 The turkey-sized animal according to National Geographic ". .
. is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to
birds. It seems to capture the paleontological `moment' when dinosaurs
were becoming birds."3 According to their press release, the anatomy of
Archaeoraptor proves a feathered theropod dinosaur was capable of flight.
The features include:

. . . a very advanced, birdlike shoulder structure, wishbone and big
sternum‹all indicating the animal was a powerful flier. Remains of
feathers surround the specimen's bones. Yet its tail was strikingly
similar to the stiff tails of a family of predatory dinosaurs known as
dromaeosaurs, which includes the "raptors" of Jurassic Park.4
Several remarkable characteristics are noted. "This mix of advanced and
primitive features is exactly what scientists would expect to find in
dinosaurs experimenting with flight,"5 and "It's a missing link between
terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly."6 The arms of the
fossil are quite wing-like, much longer than would be expected of a normal
theropod dinosaur.
A two-page photograph of the rock slab containing Archaeoraptor appears
with the article.7 The description and interpretation of Archaeoraptor was
accomplished by two scientists funded by National Geographic: Stephen
Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum (Monticello, Utah) and Xing Xu of the
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (Beijing,
China). The fossil was studied under normal light, uv light, CAT scan, and
x-ray. Czerkas said, "It's a missing link that has the advanced characters
of birds and undeniable dinosaurian characters as well." Czerkas was also
commissioned by National Geographic to produce a life-size sculpture of
Archaeoraptor. Both Czerkas and Xu appeared at the news conference on
October 15, 1999, in Washington and endorsed the authenticity of the
fossil. Also endorsing the fossil and its "feathered dinosaur"
interpretation in Washington was Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell
Museum of Paleontology (Drumheller, Alberta). Currie is widely known for
his belief that theropod dinosaurs had feathers and were warm-blooded
creatures.8 The National Geographic magazine boldly states the
implications: ". . . we can now say that birds are theropods just as
confidently as we say that humans are mammals. Everything from lunch boxes
to museum exhibits will change to reflect this revelation."9
The public impact of the National Geographic Society promotion of
Archaeoraptor has been enormous. Not only has the fossil appeared in the
magazine, but in the public display in "Explorers Hall" (October 15, 1999,
to January 18, 2000, at NGS headquarters in Washington) and on the TV
program, "National Geographic Explorer" (November 14, "Dinosaurs Take
Wing" on CNBC). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) televised a
lengthy interview concerning the fossil with Philip Currie. All the major
news services carried the story from National Geographic worldwide.
Numerous Internet websites report the fossil, including several children's
educational sites. These stories circulated just after the Kansas State
Board of Education in August adopted new science standards that deleted
references to "macroevolution."
The Fraud is Exposed
Numerous scientists voiced skepticism about both the claims and even the
fossil itself. In particular, two scientists played important roles in
asking questions that grounded Archaeoraptor. Storrs L. Olson, the curator
of birds at the Smithsonian Institution wrote:

With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in
its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for
engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated tabloid journalism.10
Specifically, Olson had been asked by the National Geographic photographer
before the October 15, 1999, news release to examine the photographs of
the three Chinese fossils that later went on public display and before the
article was published in the National Geographic. Olson wrote, "More
importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's
article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be
feathers." Larry D. Martin, paleontologist at the University of Kansas
specializing in bird fossils, also could not see feathers.11 Furthermore,
Martin's examination of photographs (not the actual rock slab of
Archaeoraptor) caused him to propose the hypothesis that the pieces of the
fossil had been assembled and could include more than one animal.12 The
dinosaur-looking tail hardly seemed to go with the bird-looking body.
Furthermore, a close inspection of the photos indicated that bones were
missing between the tail and the body.
To seal the matter, upon his return to China, Xing Xu knew that the
authenticity of Archaeoraptor could be confirmed if the counterpart of the
fossil slab could be located. The fossil had been discovered when an
original slab had been split open, and only one side of the slab had been
used by the National Geographic Society. Remarkably, Xu is reported to
have found the counterpart slab in a Chinese collection, but it did not
authenticate the assembly on display at the National Geographic Society.13
It appears that two separate fossils had been joined together. Stephen
Czerkas also admitted evidence that the Chinese fossil hunters who found
the specimen glued sections together,14 but he still holds that the tail
may go with the body of the fossil.15 Philip Currie could no longer accept
the authenticity of Archaeoraptor and expressed true remorse for having
been duped.16 A science news writer described the situation in January
2000:

Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they
have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The "feathered
dinosaur" specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare ap-parently
combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird, they say.17
Conclusion
The events surrounding Archaeoraptor provide a rare peek into the
ideological and journalistic slant that can be placed upon public
promotion of a missing link. Sloan's statement, ". . . we can now say that
birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are
mammals"18 is the editor's unfounded assertion, designed to sway public
perception, not a statement of a scientist documented with facts.
Editorial propaganda needs to be countered with attention to detail and
empirical evidence. Storrs Olson at the Smithsonian Institution may have
the best analysis of lessons learned from the Archaeoraptor affair:

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being
actively promoted by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with
certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have
become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and
careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first
casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
scientific hoaxes of our age‹the paleontological equivalent of cold
fusion.19
Recently, another "Chinese fossil" published in Nature magazine has been
questioned.20 Thus, as often occurs when "proof" for evolution is revealed
in the media, especially before careful description of the claim appears
in the scientific literature, the evidence is overstated or, in this case,
fraudulent. Sometimes time and careful study is all it takes to disprove
such "proofs."

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 30, 8:34 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <c1251b08-64df-48ce-a4b7-5683d4f6a...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, "Syd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The only hard heads in here are those who choose faith over reality.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Jason-30101...@66-53-217-66.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Which says nonbelievers won't have eternal life, which means no hell.

[Ken]

On Oct 30, 2:11 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) CCPed an article


You learned how to CCP so, when do you plan on learning to think for
yourself

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-30101...@67-150-121-194.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Back to quoting from ICR, which even you
admit is wrong in something as fundemental as
the earth being only 6000 years old.

And you trust them when it comes a fossilized
dinosaur CLEARLY showing feathers?

[Ralph]

Actual scientific evidence that your god is alive?????

[Budikka666]

On Oct 30, 4:11 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> I will respond to your posts but not engage in a debate. I have anxiety

> and also do NOT have a degree in a sciene related field\

I don't either. That's why I rely on the actual scientists instead of
posting solely personal opinion, unlike Andrew-a-blank who posts only
his opinion and offers ZERO science.

if you have anxiety attacks, you definitely don't want to be posting
in a.a. but you've now accepted a discussion. Why you think that will
be any easier than a formal debate is another unsolved mystery of
creationism, but let's go. What I want you to do is what Andrew
admits he cannot, which is to post the *positive* *scientific*
evidence for a creator, because without a creator, there can be no
creation.

When you fail to find positive scientific evidence for a creator, then
your next challenge is to find the independent objective evidence for
a creator that Andrew-a-Blank also admits he cannot provide.

When you fail even in that, then you're required to present at the
very least, an intelligent rationale for a creator, which Andrew-a-
Blank also admits he cannot provide either.

> I once debated an
> atheist college professor and did not win that debate since he kept
> discussing so called life forms such as archaeoraptor that I had never
> heard of prior to the debate

He lost because of your ignorance? lol!

>. That same professor later debated Duane Gish
> Ph.D. and that professor lost that debate.

No one lost a debate to Duane Gish.

> Dr. Gish did know all about the
> various life forms that the professor discussed during that debate.

No, he doesn't. Duane Gish is a dishonest fraud.

Steven Austin's creationist opinion is irrelevant. This is to be a
scientific discussion using published science, not the opinions of
creationists or anyone else.

There is no intelligent explanation for your posting reams of
irrelevant babble about archaeoraptor. This does nothting to make
your case for you unless you want me to start in with religious
fraud. Archaeoraptor was not a scientific fraud, it was a fraud
perpetrated by some Chinese farmer and it was exposed *not* by
creationists, but by the evolutionists.

Now where is your scientific evidence for a creator?

Budikka

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:32:08 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

What living god? You need to provide evidence that the god you preach
exists if you want us to believe your claims.

You know that you cannot provide any evidence. You know that you have no
evidence.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:54:44 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA0FBDAFED8880...@216.196.121.131...

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>
>>>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>>
>>> No, I'm right here.
>>>
>>>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>>>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>>>
>>> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>>
>> Just non-existent.
>
>Do you know everything there is in this vast
>universe?
>
>If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
>is non-existent or not.
>
>If you did, then *you* would be God, having
>omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>
>

I know that you cannot provide a shred of evidence that the god you
preach is real.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-E26E8C...@news.giganews.com...
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> "Syd M." wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> > > "Mitchell Holman" wrote:

>> > > > "Andrew" wrote:
>> > > >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>> > >
>> > > >> No, I'm right here.
>> > >
>> > > >>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>> > > >>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>> > >
>> > > >> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>> > >
>> > > >> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>> > >

>> > > > Just non-existent.
>> > >
>> > > Do you know everything there is in this vast
>> > > universe?
>> > >
>> > > If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
>> > > is non-existent or not.
>> > >
>> > > If you did, then *you* would be God, having
>> > > omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>> >
>> > Nope.
>> > Word games won't make us believe, Andrew.
>>
>> If you end up in hell due to be hard headed, it's your own fault and you
>> have no one to blame except for yourself.
>>
>> See John 3:16
>
> Which says nonbelievers won't have eternal life, which means no hell.

Not exactly.

"Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;
but rather fear Him that is able to destroy both soul and body in
hell."
~ Matthew 10:29 ~

[Andrew]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:mps0989u8rjjd8s2v...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Mitchell Holman" wrote:

>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm right here.
>>>>
>>>>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>>>>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>>>>
>>>> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>>>
>>> Just non-existent.
>>
>>Do you know everything there is in this vast
>>universe?
>>
>>If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
>>is non-existent or not.
>>
>>If you did, then *you* would be God, having
>>omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>>
>>
> I know that you cannot provide a shred of
> evidence that the god you preach is real.

Lots of evidence.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:nNSdnZIx5cSz4w3N...@earthlink.com:

None that you have ever posted.

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:99cc782b-28c0-4fd9...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>
>> No, I'm right here.
>
> No, you are RUNNING from my debate offer, too terrifed to
> even have the guts to say you dare not debate me.

We are told that those who continuously seek *~DEBATE~* are
addicted to abominable, unnatural sexual practices. .

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 recompense
for 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 fitting,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, DEBATE
deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of
evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affections,
implacable, unmerciful.

32 And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such
things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have
pleasure in those who do them.

~ Romans 1:27-32 ~

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:Fo6dnRRqHoIL4A3N...@earthlink.com:

An odd deity you choose to worship.



"You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape
of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in
the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before
them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous
God, inflicting punishment for their father's wickedness on
the children of those who hate me, down to the third and
fourth generation" (Exodus 20:4-5)

[Jason]

In article
<7d11596e-505c-418c...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:

You will meet the creator on the day that you die. That will be clear evidence.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-30101...@67-150-123-154.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

In case you don't know, Buddika, that is Jason's confession that he's
got nothing.

[Seth lePod]

On Oct 29, 7:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:e56a853e-b934-4b39...@i8g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...

> >I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>
> No, I'm right here.
>
> > admitting to everyone on Usenet that
> > your fake god is utterly worthless.
>

:

> >> That doesn't mean He's worthless.

:
> > Just non-existent.

:
> Do you know everything there is in this vast
> universe?

:
> If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
> is non-existent or not.

Let's examine Andrew's argument, and how it may apply
to the Ss'ranth. The Ss'ranth are a race of beings
which...no, no, that is entirely inadequate. Terms
like "race" and "beings" no longer apply to the
Ss'ranth, though they once did, very long ago.

But the Ss'ranth, as their knowledge increased, began
to change. To change themselves. At first the changes
were limited to what we might call "prosthetics", and
then "ability extension prosthetics". Gradually they
exchanged more and more of their bodies for
technological upgrades, until in the end, there were
neither bodies nor technology -- they had transferred
their minds to clouds of instellar plasma, plasma
entities with as many million interacting mutually self-
regulating feedback loops as their far distant
biological bodies once had.

And then, one by one, they merged with one another.

The technological ability of this unimaginably vast
hive mind ("mind" too is an utterly inadequate word
here)...their mastery of space and time and energy and
matter allowed them to create new universes, universes
utterly separated from their own, just as we nowadays
suspect that black holes may be pinching off "baby
universes" right here in our present reality. But the
Ss'ranth, being both vastly creative and more than a
little whimsical, changed the laws of physics and the
constants of physics for each new universe they
created.

And then they sat back and watched to see what
transpired.

One of those universes created by the Ss'ranth, it will
come as no surprise at this point, was the one we call
"The Universe". And the Ss'ranth were quite amused at
the way we turned out.

Do you know everything there is, not only in this vast
universe, but in all the universes?

If you don't, then you *don't know* if the Ss'ranth are
non-existant or not.

See how that works?


Seth

[BroilJAB]

Dr.Loirbaj awaits CV and contact info from Wood?

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 31, 1:59 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article

> <7d11596e-505c-418c-a1f4-02e1fe3f5...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

Jason, you've been asked for evidence that you can present right here
and now.

[Uergil]

In article
<3b7bd0a2-f6b5-4ab3...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> Dr.Loirbaj {?}

Everyone awaits reliable CV info from Liarboi Broiljab
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:ZtCdnRbhvfea8w3N...@giganews.com...

> Andrew wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm right here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>>>>>>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just non-existent.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know everything there is in this vast
>>>> universe?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
>>>> is non-existent or not.
>>>>
>>>> If you did, then *you* would be God, having
>>>> omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>>>
>>> Replace "god" with "Thor" and the
>>> emptiness of your argument becomes plain.
>>
>> Thor is dead, and cannot be compared with
>> the living God. http://www.p2l.it/1fm
>>
>>
> Actual scientific evidence that your god is alive?????

Yes, absolutely.

..and..

Very much alive!

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:28a0455d-1fd6-434f...@b15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 30, 3:34 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> If you end up in hell due to be hard headed, it's your own fault and you
>> have no one to blame except for yourself.
>
> So are you volunteering to step in where Andrew has fled and make his
> case for him? He asserted that "There is no way for a dinosaur to
> evolve into a bird."

That is correct.

> I challenged Andrew to formally debate this claim..

Good. Then you should be able to demonstrate the
scientifically observable mechanism for a dinosaur to
evolve ---> into a bird.

Please do so now.

If you cannot do so without employing fantasy in your
demonstration, then this is positive evidence that your
idea is based upon, and is dependent upon ---> fantasy.

,,,,,,,,,, AND that you have _lost_ the debate.


We will all be waiting.



> Budikka




Andrew

[Andrew]

"Jason" wrote in message news:Jason-30101...@67-150-123-154.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...

For sure.

" It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
~ Hebrews 9:27 ~

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every
one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he hath
done, whether it be good or bad."
~ 2 Corinthians 5:10 ~

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA0FCD433C1DB0...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:

Next verse:

"And showing mercy unto thousands of them
that love me, and keep my commandments."
(Exodus 20:6)

[Andrew]

"1connu" wrote in message news:k6o0gb$bjs$1...@shakotay.alphanet.ch...
> Andrew a écrit :
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/23/reanalysis-of-
>>> four-winged-dinosaur-may-illuminate-evolution-of-bird-flight/
>>>
>>> Budikka

>>
>> There is no way for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird.
>>

> But a god with infinite power from nothing, no problem !

Says one who believes in an infinite universe
--> from nothing.

You have far more *faith* than I!



Andrew

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:7d11596e-505c-418c...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> I will respond to your posts but not engage in a debate. I have anxiety
>> and also do NOT have a degree in a sciene related field\
>
> I don't either. That's why I rely on the actual scientists instead of
> posting solely personal opinion, unlike Andrew-a-blank who posts only
> his opinion and offers ZERO science.
>
> if you have anxiety attacks, you definitely don't want to be posting
> in a.a. but you've now accepted a discussion. Why you think that will
> be any easier than a formal debate is another unsolved mystery of
> creationism, but let's go. What I want you to do is what Andrew
> admits he cannot, which is to post the *positive* *scientific*
> evidence for a creator, because without a creator, there can be no
> creation.

Budikka does it again folks! Acknowledges the truth by saying, "without a
creator, there can be no creation". Conversely since there IS a creation, then
for sure there _is_ a Creator.

> Budikka


Thanks again, Budikka!



Andrew

[Devils Advocaat]

On 30 Oct, 18:30, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in messagenews:XnsA0FC4AB486471...@216.196.121.131...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>
> >>>>>I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>
> >>>> No, I'm right here.
>
> >>>>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
> >>>>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>
> >>>> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>
> >>>> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>
> >>>   Just non-existent.
>
> >> Do you know everything there is in this vast
> >> universe?
>
> >> If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
> >> is non-existent or not.
>
> >> If you did, then *you* would be God, having
> >> omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>

> >    Replace "god" with "Thor" and the
> > emptiness of your argument becomes plain.
>
> Thor is dead, and cannot be compared with
> the living God.  http://www.p2l.it/1fm

As Ragnarök hasn't happened ... yet ... your claim that Thor is dead
is a lie.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:0MqdnbQ__8piYg3N...@earthlink.com:

Mercy is for those who have committed a crime.
Why would law abiding folk need mercy?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:-PmdnTu1O_jsZg3N...@earthlink.com:

> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:28a0455d-1fd6-434f...@b15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Oct 30, 3:34 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>> If you end up in hell due to be hard headed, it's your own fault and
>>> you have no one to blame except for yourself.
>>
>> So are you volunteering to step in where Andrew has fled and make his
>> case for him? He asserted that "There is no way for a dinosaur to
>> evolve into a bird."
>
> That is correct.
>
>> I challenged Andrew to formally debate this claim..
>
> Good. Then you should be able to demonstrate the
> scientifically observable mechanism for a dinosaur to
> evolve ---> into a bird.

Natural selection.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:_KidnWxKmtgLmAzN...@earthlink.com:

There is?

What "creation" is that?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:6JadneBp-b74GQ3N...@earthlink.com:

> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:99cc782b-28c0-4fd9...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> >I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>>
>>> No, I'm right here.
>>
>> No, you are RUNNING from my debate offer, too terrifed to
>> even have the guts to say you dare not debate me.
>
> We are told that those who continuously seek *~DEBATE~* are
> addicted to abominable, unnatural sexual practices. .
>
> 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
> recompense for their error which was meet.
>

Sounds like the Bible is OK with lesbians.

> 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 fitting,
>
> 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
> covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, DEBATE
> deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,
>
> 30 backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of
> evil things, disobedient to parents,
>

Funny that the Bible condemns "disobedience
to parents" but permits those same parents to sell
their children into slavery.



"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she
will not be freed at the end of six years as the
men are."
(Exodus 21:7-11)


If a child objects to becoming a slave is that
"disobedience"?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:kvidnULG3cUcnAzN...@earthlink.com:

Modern Christian: Some who can believe
in a deity that has always existed but cannot
conceive of a universe that has always existed.

[Caranx latus]

On 10/30/2012 9:54 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:99cc782b-28c0-4fd9...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>>
>>> No, I'm right here.
>>
>> No, you are RUNNING from my debate offer, too terrifed to
>> even have the guts to say you dare not debate me.
>
> We are told that those who continuously seek *~DEBATE~* are
> addicted to abominable, unnatural sexual practices. .

That explains Congress, I guess.

<snip>

[Caranx latus]

Who are you electing to be the judge as to whether something is fantasy
or not? Not yourself, surely. In a debate about the existence of God,
would you be willing to allow your opponent to be the judge of what it
fantasy?

[Hannele]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:29:34 +0100, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net>
wrote:

Well, at the moment I'm creating a baby blanket for my soon to be born
grandchild. :)

>
>> then for sure there _is_ a Creator.
>

--
Hannele, A.A #2211

There are at least as many gods as there are believers.

[Ken]

Andrew does it again folks!
Proving to us all that he's delusional if not insane

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA0FD4BD8F74CF...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>> If you end up in hell due to be hard headed, it's your own fault and
>>>> you have no one to blame except for yourself.
>>>
>>> So are you volunteering to step in where Andrew has fled and make his
>>> case for him? He asserted that "There is no way for a dinosaur to
>>> evolve into a bird."
>>
>> That is correct.
>>
>>> I challenged Andrew to formally debate this claim..
>>
>> Good. Then you should be able to demonstrate the
>> scientifically observable mechanism for a dinosaur to
>> evolve ---> into a bird.
>
>
> Natural selection.

Natural selection creates changes within a species by acting on the traits
that are already present, and would select out a partial intermediate, and
thus could not be mechanism for a hypothesized dino --> bird evolution.

[Ken]

On Oct 31, 7:18 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote this
shit:

> Natural selection creates changes within a species by acting on the traits
> that are already present, and would select out a partial intermediate, and
> thus could not be mechanism for a hypothesized dino --> bird evolution.

Why not try thinking for yourself for a change, instead of constantly
parroting the creatioNUT mantra

[Tom McDonald]

So, in your world, mutations don't exist?

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:

>
>Failing that, can you formally debate me on the existence of this god
>of yours?
>
>Or will you run like eveyr other creationist has done?


Even though he has stated that his purpose her is to bring the word of
(his) God, Jason will never debate you on the subject.

Never.

His first response would change the subject and like Mark Twain's
story about his grandfather's ram, you would never get to the end.

"God damn but he changed the subject fast" would be about as religious
as it gets.

Early Christians died for their faith, Jason can't even type for his.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:35:38 -0700, Mike Painter
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
><budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Failing that, can you formally debate me on the existence of this god
>>of yours?
>>
>>Or will you run like eveyr other creationist has done?
>
>Even though he has stated that his purpose her is to bring the word of
>(his) God, Jason will never debate you on the subject.
>
>Never.

Reality isn't up for debate.

[Ralph]

On 10/30/2012 9:25 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-E26E8C...@news.giganews.com...

>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>> "Syd M." wrote:

>>>> "Andrew" wrote:

>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>>>> I see you running away ***AGAIN***
>>>>>>> No, I'm right here.

>>>>>>>> admitting to everyone on Usenet that
>>>>>>>> your fake god is utterly worthless.
>>>>>>> You may not know WHY He loves you.
>>>>>>> That doesn't mean He's worthless.
>>>>>> Just non-existent.
>>>>> Do you know everything there is in this vast
>>>>> universe?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't, then you *don't know* if God
>>>>> is non-existent or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you did, then *you* would be God, having
>>>>> omniscience..which is possessed only by God.
>>>> Nope.
>>>> Word games won't make us believe, Andrew.

>>> If you end up in hell due to be hard headed, it's your own fault and you
>>> have no one to blame except for yourself.
>>>

>>> See John 3:16
>> Which says nonbelievers won't have eternal life, which means no hell.
> Not exactly.
>
> "Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;
> but rather fear Him that is able to destroy both soul and body in
> hell."
> ~ Matthew 10:29 ~
>
>

There is no heaven or hell. Think about it, Andrew, no heaven or hell.