Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Help! I can't FLY!!
11 views
Skip to first unread message
All-Seeing-|
Oct 2, 2011, 10:01:54 PM10/2/11
to
Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
consistent basis.
However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
answered by evolutionists.
The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much
too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and
change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is
placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of
generations improving a wing that was useless?
The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a
species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from
natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the
smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the
largest numbers.
According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is
simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of
carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb
trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually
believe this nonsense.
Yes. They do. Like a religion.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
consistent basis.
However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
answered by evolutionists.
The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much
too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and
change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is
placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of
generations improving a wing that was useless?
The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a
species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from
natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the
smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the
largest numbers.
According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is
simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of
carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb
trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually
believe this nonsense.
Yes. They do. Like a religion.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2011, 12:40:06 AM10/3/11
to
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in
news:j6b51m$dno$1...@dont-email.me:
> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
And you are ignorant to boot.
> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The
> deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to
> escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
>
> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable
> flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a
> wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
>
> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment.
> The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve
> a wing that was useless?
>
Ask the next ostrich you meet.
> This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that
> birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.
> The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its
> environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations
> improving a wing that was useless?
>
Ask the next emu you meet.
> The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most
> adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe
> disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection.
Ask the next cassowary you meet.
news:j6b51m$dno$1...@dont-email.me:
> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The
> deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to
> escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
>
> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable
> flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a
> wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
>
> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment.
> The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve
> a wing that was useless?
>
> This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that
> birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.
> The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its
> environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations
> improving a wing that was useless?
>
> The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most
> adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe
> disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection.
Uncle Vic
Oct 3, 2011, 12:47:47 AM10/3/11
to
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in news:j6b51m$dno$1@dont-
email.me:
> My head is too big
Don't worry, it's an optical illusion. Your brain is too small.
--
Uncle Vic
Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
email.me:
> My head is too big
Don't worry, it's an optical illusion. Your brain is too small.
--
Uncle Vic
Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
Devils Advocaat
Oct 3, 2011, 1:13:59 AM10/3/11
to
all the while ignoring the fact that such articles often cite research
papers and other reliable sources, and then you go and copy stuff from
a website that provides nothing in the way of sources to back up its
strawman claims. Do you really want people to think you are a fool
maddy?
No evolutionary scientist has ever been under the impression that a
bird's wing began as a stub, you would know this if you got your
information from more reliable sources.
Uncle Vic
Oct 3, 2011, 1:44:05 AM10/3/11
to
> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
Why would some "perfect god" create such a creature? You've just made a
case for evolution, Einstein.
All-Seeing-|
Oct 3, 2011, 2:06:14 AM10/3/11
to
both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small accumulated changes or it didn't. If
it didn't, how did a fully formed wing magically appear?
Mike Lovell
Oct 3, 2011, 2:59:20 AM10/3/11
to
On 2011-10-03, All-Seeing-| <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> How did they develop wings if not by starting with a nub of some sort? You can't have it
> both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small accumulated changes or it didn't. If
> it didn't, how did a fully formed wing magically appear?
You could answer your own question of only you'd look further than your
> How did they develop wings if not by starting with a nub of some sort? You can't have it
> both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small accumulated changes or it didn't. If
> it didn't, how did a fully formed wing magically appear?
own confused mind.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use.html
But no, if you don't know about it then it's not out there huh? ;-)
--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder
Father Haskell
Oct 3, 2011, 2:50:02 AM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 12:40 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
> "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote innews:j6b51m$dno$1...@dont-email.me:
> "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote innews:j6b51m$dno$1...@dont-email.me:
Or the next dodo he meets. If we're lucky.
Mark Evans
Oct 3, 2011, 7:33:58 AM10/3/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lloyd, wings clearly developed from existing limbs, not "nubs". You
seem to be under the impression tht birds used to have only 2 limbs,
their legs, and then sprouted wings. You really need medication.
Mark Evans
VoiceOfReason
Oct 3, 2011, 8:51:09 AM10/3/11
to
All-Seeing-| wrote:
> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
> danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> consistent basis.
>
> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> answered by evolutionists.
>
> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much
> too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
Many birds, including flightless ones, use wings for display. Other
animals such as flying squirrels and flying lizards glide quite well
without fully-developed wings.
Evolution myths: Half a wing is no use
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use.html
What Use Is Half a Wing in Evolution of Birds?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060501100950.htm
<remaining idiocy snipped>
raven1
Oct 3, 2011, 9:21:51 AM10/3/11
to
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 21:01:54 -0500, "All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
And you know nothing about any topic whatsoever.
Davej
Oct 3, 2011, 10:10:37 AM10/3/11
to
On Oct 2, 8:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> [...]
every other tetrapod. The reason tetrapods have four limbs is due to
common evolutionary decent which the Creationist rejects. Thus no
"wing stubs" but instead a pair of limbs that were useful at every
stage of evolution, and slowly transformed into wings.
Before flying would come gliding. Gliding is useful. Before gliding
would come an ability to slow a fall. Slowing a fall is useful.
Creationists pretend over and over to be too ignorant to see the
obvious, and perhaps they are, but more likely is that they are simply
dishonest, manipulative liars.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
> [...]
> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his
> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
The idiot Creationist has not noticed that birds have four limbs like
> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
every other tetrapod. The reason tetrapods have four limbs is due to
common evolutionary decent which the Creationist rejects. Thus no
"wing stubs" but instead a pair of limbs that were useful at every
stage of evolution, and slowly transformed into wings.
Before flying would come gliding. Gliding is useful. Before gliding
would come an ability to slow a fall. Slowing a fall is useful.
Creationists pretend over and over to be too ignorant to see the
obvious, and perhaps they are, but more likely is that they are simply
dishonest, manipulative liars.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 3, 2011, 10:20:41 AM10/3/11
to
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:10:37 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Oct 2, 8:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his
>> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
>> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
They don't have ostriches etc on his planet?
>The idiot Creationist has not noticed that birds have four limbs like
>every other tetrapod. The reason tetrapods have four limbs is due to
>common evolutionary decent which the Creationist rejects. Thus no
>"wing stubs" but instead a pair of limbs that were useful at every
>stage of evolution, and slowly transformed into wings.
>
>Before flying would come gliding. Gliding is useful. Before gliding
>would come an ability to slow a fall. Slowing a fall is useful.
>Creationists pretend over and over to be too ignorant to see the
>obvious, and perhaps they are, but more likely is that they are simply
>dishonest, manipulative liars.
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
The idiot creationist has missed the Hoatzin whose young have claws on
their wings which remain until it can fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoatzin_chick.jpg
As you say, dishonest, manipulative liars.
wrote:
>On Oct 2, 8:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his
>> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
>> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>The idiot Creationist has not noticed that birds have four limbs like
>every other tetrapod. The reason tetrapods have four limbs is due to
>common evolutionary decent which the Creationist rejects. Thus no
>"wing stubs" but instead a pair of limbs that were useful at every
>stage of evolution, and slowly transformed into wings.
>
>Before flying would come gliding. Gliding is useful. Before gliding
>would come an ability to slow a fall. Slowing a fall is useful.
>Creationists pretend over and over to be too ignorant to see the
>obvious, and perhaps they are, but more likely is that they are simply
>dishonest, manipulative liars.
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
their wings which remain until it can fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoatzin_chick.jpg
As you say, dishonest, manipulative liars.
Malte Runz
Oct 3, 2011, 11:42:45 AM10/3/11
to
"Davej" skrev i meddelelsen
news:a1c4a445-9f99-4c36...@5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
I was working on a sarcastic piece as a response to the 'wing stub', but
couldn't come up anything even more idiotic. Does All-Flea really believe
the ToE teaches that the different limbs on animals all started as small
purposeless stubs on a sausage shaped creature? 'Botulus wieneri'. I
wouldn't put it past him.
--
Malte Runz
news:a1c4a445-9f99-4c36...@5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
couldn't come up anything even more idiotic. Does All-Flea really believe
the ToE teaches that the different limbs on animals all started as small
purposeless stubs on a sausage shaped creature? 'Botulus wieneri'. I
wouldn't put it past him.
--
Malte Runz
MarkA
Oct 3, 2011, 2:05:17 PM10/3/11
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 01:06:14 -0500, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>
> How did they develop wings if not by starting with a nub of some sort? You
> can't have it both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small
> accumulated changes or it didn't. If it didn't, how did a fully formed
> wing magically appear?
You really are making more of a fool of yourself than usual. It doesn't
>
> How did they develop wings if not by starting with a nub of some sort? You
> can't have it both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small
> accumulated changes or it didn't. If it didn't, how did a fully formed
> wing magically appear?
matter if you look at flying birds, bats, or penguins: their wings are
specialized upper extremities. They didn't evolve from "nubs."
If you want to make a spurious argument against evolution, pick something
a little less obviously wrong, won't you?
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Andrew
Oct 3, 2011, 2:27:42 PM10/3/11
to
"Mike Lovell" wrote in message news:slrnj8ina8.9e...@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
"Over time, flapping *could have* replaced rowing as the main means of propulsion
"As these proto-wings became more efficient and specialised, early insects *may have*
taken further steps towards flying
"Without a time machine it is difficult to prove exactly what early birds or insects used
"half a wing" for
_________________________________________________________________
The article expresses the imagination and fantasy of its author.
> But no, if you don't know about it then it's not out there huh? ;-)
Your statement (above) reveals your amazing credulity!
Andrew
The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
> On 2011-10-03, All-Seeing-| <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>> How did they develop wings if not by starting with a nub of some sort? You can't have it
>> both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small accumulated changes or it didn't. If
>> it didn't, how did a fully formed wing magically appear?
>
> You could answer your own question of only you'd look further than your
> own confused mind.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use.html
From thme above....
>> How did they develop wings if not by starting with a nub of some sort? You can't have it
>> both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small accumulated changes or it didn't. If
>> it didn't, how did a fully formed wing magically appear?
>
> You could answer your own question of only you'd look further than your
> own confused mind.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use.html
"Over time, flapping *could have* replaced rowing as the main means of propulsion
"As these proto-wings became more efficient and specialised, early insects *may have*
taken further steps towards flying
"Without a time machine it is difficult to prove exactly what early birds or insects used
"half a wing" for
_________________________________________________________________
The article expresses the imagination and fantasy of its author.
> But no, if you don't know about it then it's not out there huh? ;-)
Andrew
The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
Conan the bacterium
Oct 3, 2011, 2:32:44 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 11:27 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Mike Lovell" wrote in messagenews:slrnj8ina8.9e...@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
falsehoods with an equally absolute lack of
honest intellectual uncertainty.
conan
> "Mike Lovell" wrote in messagenews:slrnj8ina8.9e...@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
> > On 2011-10-03, All-Seeing-| <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> How did they develop wings if not by starting with a nub of some sort? You can't have it
> >> both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small accumulated changes or it didn't. If
> >> it didn't, how did a fully formed wing magically appear?
>
> > You could answer your own question of only you'd look further than your
> > own confused mind.
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wi...
> >> How did they develop wings if not by starting with a nub of some sort? You can't have it
> >> both ways, DA. Either the wing formed through small accumulated changes or it didn't. If
> >> it didn't, how did a fully formed wing magically appear?
>
> > You could answer your own question of only you'd look further than your
> > own confused mind.
>
>
> From thme above....
>
> "Over time, flapping *could have* replaced rowing as the main means of propulsion
>
> "As these proto-wings became more efficient and specialised, early insects *may have*
> taken further steps towards flying
>
> "Without a time machine it is difficult to prove exactly what early birds or insects used
> "half a wing" for
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> The article expresses the imagination and fantasy of its author.
>
> > But no, if you don't know about it then it's not out there huh? ;-)
>
> Your statement (above) reveals your amazing credulity!
>
> Andrew
>
> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
As opposed to the believer, who expresses absolute
> From thme above....
>
> "Over time, flapping *could have* replaced rowing as the main means of propulsion
>
> "As these proto-wings became more efficient and specialised, early insects *may have*
> taken further steps towards flying
>
> "Without a time machine it is difficult to prove exactly what early birds or insects used
> "half a wing" for
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> The article expresses the imagination and fantasy of its author.
>
> > But no, if you don't know about it then it's not out there huh? ;-)
>
> Your statement (above) reveals your amazing credulity!
>
> Andrew
>
> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
falsehoods with an equally absolute lack of
honest intellectual uncertainty.
conan
Mike Lovell
Oct 3, 2011, 3:53:46 PM10/3/11
to
On 2011-10-03, Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> From thme above....
>
> "Over time, flapping *could have* replaced rowing as the main means of propulsion
>
> "As these proto-wings became more efficient and specialised, early insects *may have*
> taken further steps towards flying
>
> "Without a time machine it is difficult to prove exactly what early birds or insects used
> "half a wing" for
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> The article expresses the imagination and fantasy of its author.
No, it's just beyond your level of comprehension. Difference ;-)
> From thme above....
>
> "Over time, flapping *could have* replaced rowing as the main means of propulsion
>
> "As these proto-wings became more efficient and specialised, early insects *may have*
> taken further steps towards flying
>
> "Without a time machine it is difficult to prove exactly what early birds or insects used
> "half a wing" for
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> The article expresses the imagination and fantasy of its author.
> > But no, if you don't know about it then it's not out there huh? ;-)
>
> Your statement (above) reveals your amazing credulity!
I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously, anyone stupid enough to deny
all the evidence of evolution and accept all the lack of evidence for
Creationism has some *very* broken scales ;-)
MarkA
Oct 3, 2011, 4:10:57 PM10/3/11
to
is infinitely more imaginative than people are. It doesn't take much
imagination to postulate that someone just like your dad, only perfect,
made everything be the way it is.
Father Haskell
Oct 3, 2011, 4:47:26 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 10:20 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:10:37 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:10:37 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 2, 8:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his
> >> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
> >> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> They don't have ostriches etc on his planet?
Ostriches don't exist, since they weren't on the ark.
>
> >On Oct 2, 8:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his
> >> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
> >> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> They don't have ostriches etc on his planet?
Father Haskell
Oct 3, 2011, 4:46:33 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 8:51 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> All-Seeing-| wrote:
> > Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> > The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
> > danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> > consistent basis.
>
> > However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> > best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> > answered by evolutionists.
>
> > The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much
> > too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> Yeesh, talk about a classic lame argument.
>
> Many birds, including flightless ones, use wings for display. Other
> animals such as flying squirrels and flying lizards glide quite well
> without fully-developed wings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwDAsJCB2Pg
> All-Seeing-| wrote:
> > Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> > The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
> > danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> > consistent basis.
>
> > However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> > best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> > answered by evolutionists.
>
> > The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much
> > too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> Yeesh, talk about a classic lame argument.
>
> Many birds, including flightless ones, use wings for display. Other
> animals such as flying squirrels and flying lizards glide quite well
> without fully-developed wings.
Dakota
Oct 3, 2011, 5:14:36 PM10/3/11
to
VoiceOfReason
Oct 3, 2011, 5:30:34 PM10/3/11
to
that's got to be worse a worse thought than the zombie apocalypse. :-
D
us4...@att.net
Oct 3, 2011, 5:48:15 PM10/3/11
to
I know what they will say. They will talk about flying lizards
and gliding snakes. Then they will work up to flying squirrels.
Etc. Etc. been there done that (as a Biologist myself).
As a side note, flying squirrels do not really "fly". My hunting
cabin back in the mountains was recently overtaken by "flying
squirrels". We thought it was rats that were trouncing our cabin
'till we actually trapped the culprits. They are crafty, and
amazing creatures.
I repeat "flying squirrels do not fly". They glide from tree to
tree via flaps of skin between their legs.
Yet squirrels do not have "wings". If evolution were a fact
squirrels would have wings by now and would not still be relying
on leg-flaps of skin and "gliding" from tree to tree. Especially
when you consider that evolutionists claim squirrels evolved into
humans.
"We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed
quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of
the Old World." - (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)
It is absurd. They demand that we believe men came from
squirrels, but yet squirrels were unable to develope wings.
U4Z
VoiceOfReason
Oct 3, 2011, 5:33:11 PM10/3/11
to
Maybe they micro-evolved from finches a week after getting off ye
arke. :-)
Mike Lovell
Oct 3, 2011, 6:51:01 PM10/3/11
to
On 2011-10-03, us4...@att.net <us4...@att.net> wrote:
> I know what they will say. They will talk about flying lizards
> and gliding snakes. Then they will work up to flying squirrels.
> Etc. Etc. been there done that (as a Biologist myself).
^^^^^^^^^
> I know what they will say. They will talk about flying lizards
> and gliding snakes. Then they will work up to flying squirrels.
> Etc. Etc. been there done that (as a Biologist myself).
You absolute liar!
What a model Christian you are.
Father Haskell
Oct 3, 2011, 6:15:01 PM10/3/11
to
Might explain how Noah managed to cram the elephants
onboard.
Antares 531
Oct 3, 2011, 6:18:27 PM10/3/11
to
literal sense. Look for the underlying meanings and embedded messages.
1. God can and will, from time to time, wipe out all creatures that
are no longer of use to Him and his on-going project on this planet.
The Yucatan Meteor Strike is a typical example of this.
2. God can expand the remaining phyla, species, etc., to fill any
voids that He will need filled later. Horizontal transfer of DNA works
very well, here.
3. God's on-going process is FAR beyond our human intelligence and our
ability to get it all figured out in the four dimensional space/time
that our brains are familiar with.
Gordon
panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade
Oct 3, 2011, 6:19:18 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 5:48 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
snip
> I repeat "flying squirrels do not fly". They glide from tree to
> tree via flaps of skin between their legs.
Gliding's not flying? That's gonna be big news to these guys..
http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/fly/1902/glider.cfm
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
snip
> I repeat "flying squirrels do not fly". They glide from tree to
> tree via flaps of skin between their legs.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/fly/1902/glider.cfm
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Budikka666
Oct 3, 2011, 6:20:22 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 2, 9:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
> danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> consistent basis.
>
> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> answered by evolutionists.
Outright LIE! 756,000 results from Google scholar on "evolution of
> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
> danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> consistent basis.
>
> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> answered by evolutionists.
flight"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+of+flight&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=on
Once again the creationist is shown to be puling his "science" out of
his dumb ass.
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 3, 2011, 6:28:36 PM10/3/11
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:18:27 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
><father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 3, 10:20 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:10:37 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Oct 2, 8:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> >> [...]
>>> >> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his
>>> >> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
>>> >> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>>>
>>> They don't have ostriches etc on his planet?
>>
>>Ostriches don't exist, since they weren't on the ark.
>>
>This is an allegorical story and should not be interpreted in a
>literal sense.
Tell that to the Christians who imagine it was real. imbecile.
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
><father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 3, 10:20 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:10:37 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Oct 2, 8:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> >> [...]
>>> >> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his
>>> >> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
>>> >> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>>>
>>> They don't have ostriches etc on his planet?
>>
>>Ostriches don't exist, since they weren't on the ark.
>>
>This is an allegorical story and should not be interpreted in a
>literal sense.
> Look for the underlying meanings and embedded messages.
>1. God
Idiot.
> can and will, from time to time, wipe out all creatures that
>are no longer of use
> to Him
Idiot.
> and his
Idiot.
> on-going project on this planet.
>The Yucatan Meteor Strike is a typical example of this.
>2. God
Idiot.
> can expand the remaining phyla, species, etc., to fill any
>voids that He
Idiot.
> will need filled later. Horizontal transfer of DNA works
>very well, here.
>3. God's
Idiot.
> on-going process is FAR beyond our human intelligence and our
>ability to get it all figured out in the four dimensional space/time
>that our brains are familiar with.
>Gordon
Gordon is a moron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN45OjB-cCU#t=01m20s
us4...@att.net
Oct 3, 2011, 6:35:58 PM10/3/11
to
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:19:18 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com
rade" <panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Gliding's not flying?
Sure it is. Reports have it that highly evolved humans have begun
to develope skin flaps between their arms and legs and may soon
be able to "fly".
LOL!
U4Z
rade" <panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Gliding's not flying?
Sure it is. Reports have it that highly evolved humans have begun
to develope skin flaps between their arms and legs and may soon
be able to "fly".
LOL!
U4Z
Budikka666
Oct 3, 2011, 6:22:58 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 1:27 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
You seem very confident, Andrew-a-Blank. Why don't you and I debate
that very topic right here in this thread, using published science to
support our arguments?
Or you can RUN as you always do and prove to all your friends what a
vacuous LIAR you are.
On that, you're doing a great job, Blanky.
Budikka
All-Seeing-|
Oct 3, 2011, 6:45:32 PM10/3/11
to
Mike Lovell
Oct 3, 2011, 7:28:12 PM10/3/11
to
> Sure it is. Reports have it that highly evolved humans have begun
> to develope skin flaps between their arms and legs and may soon
> be able to "fly".
>
> LOL!
Poor troll, doesn't understand evolutionary time-scales - Nor natural
> to develope skin flaps between their arms and legs and may soon
> be able to "fly".
>
> LOL!
selection.
All-Seeing-|
Oct 3, 2011, 7:02:52 PM10/3/11
to
Budikka666 wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>>
>> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer.
>> The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are
>> able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
>>
>> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable
>> flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a
>> wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
>
> Outright LIE! 756,000 results from Google scholar on "evolution of
> flight"
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+of+flight&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=on
This is meaningless, and you know it.
> On Oct 2, 9:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>>
>> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer.
>> The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are
>> able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
>>
>> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable
>> flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a
>> wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
>
> Outright LIE! 756,000 results from Google scholar on "evolution of
> flight"
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+of+flight&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=on
> Once again the creationist is shown to be puling his "science" out of
> his dumb ass.
>
> Budikka
joints of its wing would dislocate if it tried.
It could not control itself during a glide, and it was powerless to begin flight from the
ground.
GOD CREATED BIRDS. See Genesis 1
kni...@baawa.com
Oct 3, 2011, 8:11:48 PM10/3/11
to
>This is an allegorical story and should not be interpreted in a
>literal sense. Look for the underlying meanings and embedded messages.
>1. God can and will, from time to time, wipe out all creatures that
>are no longer of use to Him and his on-going project on this planet.
>The Yucatan Meteor Strike is a typical example of this.
>
>2. God can expand the remaining phyla, species, etc., to fill any
>voids that He will need filled later. Horizontal transfer of DNA works
>very well, here.
>
>3. God's on-going process is FAR beyond our human intelligence and our
>ability to get it all figured out in the four dimensional space/time
>that our brains are familiar with.
Translation - Goddidit.
>literal sense. Look for the underlying meanings and embedded messages.
>1. God can and will, from time to time, wipe out all creatures that
>are no longer of use to Him and his on-going project on this planet.
>The Yucatan Meteor Strike is a typical example of this.
>
>2. God can expand the remaining phyla, species, etc., to fill any
>voids that He will need filled later. Horizontal transfer of DNA works
>very well, here.
>
>3. God's on-going process is FAR beyond our human intelligence and our
>ability to get it all figured out in the four dimensional space/time
>that our brains are familiar with.
Next time just say that. You don't have to explain anything. All
the atheists will know exactly what you mean.
Thanks for playing.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Andrew
Oct 3, 2011, 9:11:39 PM10/3/11
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:f73652c5-7494-4f64...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
> here in this thread, using published science to
> support our arguments?
Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
the God of creation? He is the One who loves
you.
>
> Budikka
>
>
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
>> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
>
> You seem very confident, Andrew-a-Blank.
Yes.
>
>> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
>> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
>
> You seem very confident, Andrew-a-Blank.
> Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
> here in this thread, using published science to
> support our arguments?
the God of creation? He is the One who loves
you.
>
> Budikka
>
>
Andrew
Andrew
Oct 3, 2011, 9:12:24 PM10/3/11
to
"Caranx latus" wrote in message news:Qmriq.292974$XC2.2...@news.usenetserver.com...
> Once upon a time on this great big world of ours, there lived lots and lots of life forms, none of which had any limbs whatsoever.
> Gradually, as lots and lots of time went by, some creatures evolved that had fins but none of these had fins that could support
> their own weight if they were partially out of the water. More time went by.
>
> Then some creatures appeared that had bones in their fins, giving them lots of structural support. And guess what... these could
> come partially out of the water, giving them access to niches that no others could exploit! An unused niche! Those were happy days
> indeed, as these creatures froliced in the shallow water and climbed over rocks.
>
> Over time, more creatures evolved which could go onto land for short distances. Another unused niche! How wonderful! The bony fins
> changed over time in ways that provided more support for the creatures, allowing them to move further and faster on dry land than
> ever before. Eventually, the characteristics of these fins used for locomotion in water disappeared as they no longer helped in
> the new niche. Do you know what we call them at this stage? No? We call them legs.
>
> The interesting thing about the creatures that moved onto the land is that all of them had *four* limbs. For quite a while, all of
> these creatures needed all four legs in order to move because none of them could stand on two legs. But then Mr. Evolution came
> along and invented some creatures that could! Since they no longer needed their front limbs as legs, they became... you know the
> answer... come on... yes, that's right! Arms! Very well done.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools, And changed the glory of
the uncorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to un-
cleanness through the lusts of their own
hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
between them elves: Who changed the
truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
~ Romans 1:22-25 ~
> Once upon a time on this great big world of ours, there lived lots and lots of life forms, none of which had any limbs whatsoever.
> Gradually, as lots and lots of time went by, some creatures evolved that had fins but none of these had fins that could support
> their own weight if they were partially out of the water. More time went by.
>
> Then some creatures appeared that had bones in their fins, giving them lots of structural support. And guess what... these could
> come partially out of the water, giving them access to niches that no others could exploit! An unused niche! Those were happy days
> indeed, as these creatures froliced in the shallow water and climbed over rocks.
>
> Over time, more creatures evolved which could go onto land for short distances. Another unused niche! How wonderful! The bony fins
> changed over time in ways that provided more support for the creatures, allowing them to move further and faster on dry land than
> ever before. Eventually, the characteristics of these fins used for locomotion in water disappeared as they no longer helped in
> the new niche. Do you know what we call them at this stage? No? We call them legs.
>
> The interesting thing about the creatures that moved onto the land is that all of them had *four* limbs. For quite a while, all of
> these creatures needed all four legs in order to move because none of them could stand on two legs. But then Mr. Evolution came
> along and invented some creatures that could! Since they no longer needed their front limbs as legs, they became... you know the
> answer... come on... yes, that's right! Arms! Very well done.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools, And changed the glory of
the uncorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to un-
cleanness through the lusts of their own
hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
between them elves: Who changed the
truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
~ Romans 1:22-25 ~
VoiceOfReason
Oct 3, 2011, 10:04:02 PM10/3/11
to
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2011, 10:10:32 PM10/3/11
to
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in
news:j6deup$k41$1...@dont-email.me:
> Budikka666 wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 9:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>>>
>>> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer.
>>> The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are
>>> able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
>>>
>>> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable
>>> flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a
>>> wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
>>
>> Outright LIE! 756,000 results from Google scholar on "evolution of
>> flight"
>> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+of+flight&hl=en&btnG=Searc
>> h&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=on
>
> This is meaningless, and you know it.
>
>> Once again the creationist is shown to be puling his "science" out of
>> his dumb ass.
>>
>> Budikka
>
> Physical models and Computer simulations were made of Microraptor. It
> could not fly. The joints of its wing would dislocate if it tried.
Plenty of birds cannot fly.
Does that mean they don't exist, or that
God created them that way?
news:j6deup$k41$1...@dont-email.me:
> Budikka666 wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 9:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>>>
>>> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer.
>>> The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are
>>> able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
>>>
>>> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable
>>> flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a
>>> wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
>>
>> Outright LIE! 756,000 results from Google scholar on "evolution of
>> flight"
>> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+of+flight&hl=en&btnG=Searc
>> h&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=on
>
> This is meaningless, and you know it.
>
>> Once again the creationist is shown to be puling his "science" out of
>> his dumb ass.
>>
>> Budikka
>
> Physical models and Computer simulations were made of Microraptor. It
> could not fly. The joints of its wing would dislocate if it tried.
Does that mean they don't exist, or that
God created them that way?
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2011, 10:15:26 PM10/3/11
to
us4...@att.net wrote in news:c7ak87li5rpktedl0...@4ax.com:
>
>
> I know what they will say. They will talk about flying lizards
> and gliding snakes. Then they will work up to flying squirrels.
> Etc. Etc. been there done that (as a Biologist myself).
>
You are biologist?
Prove it.
>
>
> I know what they will say. They will talk about flying lizards
> and gliding snakes. Then they will work up to flying squirrels.
> Etc. Etc. been there done that (as a Biologist myself).
>
Prove it.
Malte Runz
Oct 4, 2011, 3:18:30 AM10/4/11
to
skrev i meddelelsen news:c7ak87li5rpktedl0...@4ax.com...
You a biologist? Home schooled, no doubt.
>
> As a side note, flying squirrels do not really "fly". My hunting
> cabin back in the mountains was recently overtaken by "flying
> squirrels". We thought it was rats that were trouncing our cabin
> 'till we actually trapped the culprits. They are crafty, and
> amazing creatures.
>
> I repeat "flying squirrels do not fly". They glide from tree to
> tree via flaps of skin between their legs.
>
> Yet squirrels do not have "wings". If evolution were a fact
> squirrels would have wings by now ...
Not at all. Evolution takes time, and the gliding squirrels we see today
might one day be regarded as an intermediate form between a non-flying
squirrels species and a more 'bat-like' flying squirrel species.
And, yes I wrote "might" because we don't know what will happen. Evolution
has no predetermined goal.
> ... and would not still be relying
If you need to lie to 'prove' your point, you've already lost.
> "We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed
> quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of
> the Old World." - (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)
>
> It is absurd. They demand that we believe men came from
> squirrels, but yet squirrels were unable to develope wings.
'But humans don't have wings either, so it must be true'.
I give you the benefit of doubt, and just call you a deliberate liar.
--
Malte Runz
>
> As a side note, flying squirrels do not really "fly". My hunting
> cabin back in the mountains was recently overtaken by "flying
> squirrels". We thought it was rats that were trouncing our cabin
> 'till we actually trapped the culprits. They are crafty, and
> amazing creatures.
>
> I repeat "flying squirrels do not fly". They glide from tree to
> tree via flaps of skin between their legs.
>
> Yet squirrels do not have "wings". If evolution were a fact
Not at all. Evolution takes time, and the gliding squirrels we see today
might one day be regarded as an intermediate form between a non-flying
squirrels species and a more 'bat-like' flying squirrel species.
And, yes I wrote "might" because we don't know what will happen. Evolution
has no predetermined goal.
> ... and would not still be relying
> on leg-flaps of skin and "gliding" from tree to tree. Especially
> when you consider that evolutionists claim squirrels evolved into
> humans.
Oh really? Who said so?
> when you consider that evolutionists claim squirrels evolved into
> humans.
If you need to lie to 'prove' your point, you've already lost.
> "We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed
> quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of
> the Old World." - (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)
>
> It is absurd. They demand that we believe men came from
> squirrels, but yet squirrels were unable to develope wings.
I give you the benefit of doubt, and just call you a deliberate liar.
--
Malte Runz
The Magpie
Oct 4, 2011, 9:39:12 AM10/4/11
to
On 04/10/2011 02:11, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:f73652c5-7494-4f64...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:f73652c5-7494-4f64...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
>> here in this thread, using published science to
>> support our arguments?
>
> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
> you.
>
You seem to misunderstand the word "debate".
>> here in this thread, using published science to
>> support our arguments?
>
> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
> you.
>
Robert Weldon
Oct 4, 2011, 12:11:08 PM10/4/11
to
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:j6ddu8$dts$1...@dont-email.me...
Except of course, for the amazing lack of any evidence of the existance of
said god(s)
news:j6ddu8$dts$1...@dont-email.me...
said god(s)
Robert Weldon
Oct 4, 2011, 12:14:25 PM10/4/11
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:D9-dnciB5dbkwBfT...@earthlink.com...
Posting scripture to refute facts doesn't help your position.
news:D9-dnciB5dbkwBfT...@earthlink.com...
Antares 531
Oct 4, 2011, 12:22:58 PM10/4/11
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:11:08 -0600, "Robert Weldon" <robo...@live.ca>
wrote:
A visually impaired person riding in a car might say the same thing
about traffic signs. Gordon
wrote:
about traffic signs. Gordon
Andrew
Oct 4, 2011, 3:08:08 PM10/4/11
to
"Robert Weldon" wrote in message news:HhGiq.6924$tU1....@newsfe01.iad...
> "Andrew" wrote:
You reject God, yet accept the "once upon a time" story as.. fact.
> "Andrew" wrote:
All-Seeing-|
Oct 4, 2011, 4:00:10 PM10/4/11
to
Malte Runz
Oct 4, 2011, 4:45:24 PM10/4/11
to
"Andrew" skrev i meddelelsen
news:N5ednUuYFd4ExBbT...@earthlink.com...
> You reject God, ...
I don't believe there are any gods at all, so I don't reject yours in
particular
> ... yet accept the "once upon a time" story as.. fact.
It's really not the point whether the story is a 'fact' or not. Creationists
claim that life forms can not evolve into new and sometimes very different
species. 'Once upon a time' is a very plausible and scientificly sound
desciption of how it could have happened.
'Once upon a time' is not a 'this is how it happened' (i.e. a 'fact'), but
rather a 'this is how it might have happened' story. Yes, I use the
hypothetical subjunctive, but it doesn't mean it's guess work or requires
faith to accept. I bet you can't point to anything in the scenario that is
proven to be false. It means that there is at least one way life could have
evolved into what it is today without any help from any
gods/creators/intelligent designers.
--
Malte Runz
news:N5ednUuYFd4ExBbT...@earthlink.com...
I don't believe there are any gods at all, so I don't reject yours in
particular
> ... yet accept the "once upon a time" story as.. fact.
It's really not the point whether the story is a 'fact' or not. Creationists
claim that life forms can not evolve into new and sometimes very different
species. 'Once upon a time' is a very plausible and scientificly sound
desciption of how it could have happened.
'Once upon a time' is not a 'this is how it happened' (i.e. a 'fact'), but
rather a 'this is how it might have happened' story. Yes, I use the
hypothetical subjunctive, but it doesn't mean it's guess work or requires
faith to accept. I bet you can't point to anything in the scenario that is
proven to be false. It means that there is at least one way life could have
evolved into what it is today without any help from any
gods/creators/intelligent designers.
--
Malte Runz
Budikka666
Oct 4, 2011, 5:39:57 PM10/4/11
to
On Oct 3, 8:11 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:f73652c5-7494-4f64...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
affirmative? Once again, I base my understanding ON THE EVIDENCE.
Got that numbnuts? because I've explained that to you a gazillion
times and here you are demanding that everyone understand that you're
a monumental retard with the attention span of a gad fly.
Here's my statement *yet* *again*: YES, ANDREW, *IF* *YOU* *CAN*
*PRESENT* *SUFFICIENT* *POSITIVE* *SCIENTIFIC* *EVIDENCE* *SUPPORTING
* *YOUR * POSITION, then I will accept it.
Now is there any other way in which I can dumb that down so that even
you get it?
YES, The Answer is YES.
Got that now?
Now are you going to debate this with me and support your position or
will you RUN as you have done *every* *single* *time* I've Challenged
you?
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:f73652c5-7494-4f64...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
> >> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
>
> > You seem very confident, Andrew-a-Blank.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
> > here in this thread, using published science to
> > support our arguments?
>
> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
> you.
Why do you ask this question, and then RUN when I answer in the
>
> >> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
> >> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
>
> > You seem very confident, Andrew-a-Blank.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
> > here in this thread, using published science to
> > support our arguments?
>
> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
> you.
affirmative? Once again, I base my understanding ON THE EVIDENCE.
Got that numbnuts? because I've explained that to you a gazillion
times and here you are demanding that everyone understand that you're
a monumental retard with the attention span of a gad fly.
Here's my statement *yet* *again*: YES, ANDREW, *IF* *YOU* *CAN*
*PRESENT* *SUFFICIENT* *POSITIVE* *SCIENTIFIC* *EVIDENCE* *SUPPORTING
* *YOUR * POSITION, then I will accept it.
Now is there any other way in which I can dumb that down so that even
you get it?
YES, The Answer is YES.
Got that now?
Now are you going to debate this with me and support your position or
will you RUN as you have done *every* *single* *time* I've Challenged
you?
Budikka
Budikka666
Oct 4, 2011, 5:43:09 PM10/4/11
to
On Oct 3, 8:12 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Caranx latus" wrote in messagenews:Qmriq.292974$XC2.2...@news.usenetserver.com...
Your proselytizing in alt.atheism has been reported as spam.
Budikka
> "Caranx latus" wrote in messagenews:Qmriq.292974$XC2.2...@news.usenetserver.com...
Budikka
Andrew
Oct 4, 2011, 6:07:04 PM10/4/11
to
"The Magpie" wrote in message news:60Eiq.574$lE4...@newsfe07.ams2...
> Andrew wrote:
the implications of the evidence presented?
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>
>>>> Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
>>> here in this thread, using published science to
>>> support our arguments?
>>
>> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
>> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
>> you.
>>
> You seem to misunderstand the word "debate".
What's the purpose if one refuses to accept
>>
>>>> Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
>>> here in this thread, using published science to
>>> support our arguments?
>>
>> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
>> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
>> you.
>>
> You seem to misunderstand the word "debate".
the implications of the evidence presented?
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 4, 2011, 6:27:34 PM10/4/11
to
over something that is nothing to do with atheism.
The wholly babble drivel is because he's so stupid he imagines citing
it makes a point.
>Budikka
Andrew
Oct 4, 2011, 6:59:33 PM10/4/11
to
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:58361e2d-ba3e-4871...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Tell them that I told you that God loves you.
> Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Caranx latus" wrote:
>> "Caranx latus" wrote:
> Budikka
Andrew
Larry Hewitt
Oct 4, 2011, 7:02:15 PM10/4/11
to
Larry
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 4, 2011, 7:36:14 PM10/4/11
to
His problem is that in his "mind" it is self-evident and he can't
understand why people don't believe it.
Buddythunder
Oct 4, 2011, 9:10:23 PM10/4/11
to
On Oct 5, 9:00 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> Robert Weldon wrote:
> > "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
If only you would provide it...
> Robert Weldon wrote:
> > "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
Father Haskell
Oct 4, 2011, 10:07:32 PM10/4/11
to
On Oct 4, 4:00 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> You mean an amazing amount of evidence that is ignored.
Do you think scientists have it "in" for your god?
> You mean an amazing amount of evidence that is ignored.
JohnN
Oct 4, 2011, 11:02:44 PM10/4/11
to
On Oct 3, 12:40 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
> "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote innews:j6b51m$dno$1...@dont-email.me:
The next penguin* you meet.
JohnN
* The penguin: the best bird.
> "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote innews:j6b51m$dno$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> > Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> And you are ignorant to boot.
> > Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
>
> > The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The
> > deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to
> > escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
>
> > However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable
> > flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a
> > wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
>
> > The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment.
> > The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve
> > a wing that was useless?
>
> Ask the next ostrich you meet.
> > The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The
> > deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to
> > escape the predator on a more consistent basis.
>
> > However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable
> > flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a
> > wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.
>
> > The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment.
> > The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve
> > a wing that was useless?
>
>
> > This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that
> > birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.
> > The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its
> > environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations
> > improving a wing that was useless?
>
> Ask the next emu you meet.
> > This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that
> > birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.
> > The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its
> > environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations
> > improving a wing that was useless?
>
>
> > The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most
> > adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe
> > disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection.
>
> Ask the next cassowary you meet.
> > The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most
> > adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe
> > disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection.
>
The next penguin* you meet.
JohnN
* The penguin: the best bird.
Father Haskell
Oct 4, 2011, 11:23:55 PM10/4/11
to
On Oct 3, 5:30 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 4:46 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 8:51 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > > Many birds, including flightless ones, use wings for display. Other
> > > animals such as flying squirrels and flying lizards glide quite well
> > > without fully-developed wings.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwDAsJCB2Pg
>
> Flying snakes are so friggin cool! For anybody with a fear of snakes,
> that's got to be worse a worse thought than the zombie apocalypse. :-
> D
If *snakes* can fly, so much for asi's irreducible complexity
bullshit.
> On Oct 3, 4:46 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 8:51 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > > All-Seeing-| wrote:
> > > > Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> > > All-Seeing-| wrote:
> > > > Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> > > > The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
> > > > danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> > > > consistent basis.
>
> > > > However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> > > > best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> > > > answered by evolutionists.
>
> > > > The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much
> > > > too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> > > Yeesh, talk about a classic lame argument.
> > > > danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> > > > consistent basis.
>
> > > > However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> > > > best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> > > > answered by evolutionists.
>
> > > > The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much
> > > > too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
>
> > > Many birds, including flightless ones, use wings for display. Other
> > > animals such as flying squirrels and flying lizards glide quite well
> > > without fully-developed wings.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwDAsJCB2Pg
>
> Flying snakes are so friggin cool! For anybody with a fear of snakes,
> that's got to be worse a worse thought than the zombie apocalypse. :-
> D
If *snakes* can fly, so much for asi's irreducible complexity
bullshit.
Father Haskell
Oct 4, 2011, 11:27:21 PM10/4/11
to
On Oct 3, 6:18 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> >> >> [...]
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>
> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 3, 10:20 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:10:37 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 2, 8:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 3, 10:20 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:10:37 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his
> >> >> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
> >> >> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> >> >> environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
> >> >> Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> >> They don't have ostriches etc on his planet?
>
> >Ostriches don't exist, since they weren't on the ark.
>
>
> >Ostriches don't exist, since they weren't on the ark.
>
> This is an allegorical story and should not be interpreted in a
> literal sense. Look for the underlying meanings and embedded messages.
> 1. God can and will, from time to time, wipe out all creatures that
> are no longer of use to Him and his on-going project on this planet.
> The Yucatan Meteor Strike is a typical example of this.
>
> 2. God can expand the remaining phyla, species, etc., to fill any
> voids that He will need filled later. Horizontal transfer of DNA works
> very well, here.
>
> 3. God's on-going process is FAR beyond our human intelligence and our
> ability to get it all figured out in the four dimensional space/time
> that our brains are familiar with.
Or it's all bullshit.
> literal sense. Look for the underlying meanings and embedded messages.
> 1. God can and will, from time to time, wipe out all creatures that
> are no longer of use to Him and his on-going project on this planet.
> The Yucatan Meteor Strike is a typical example of this.
>
> 2. God can expand the remaining phyla, species, etc., to fill any
> voids that He will need filled later. Horizontal transfer of DNA works
> very well, here.
>
> 3. God's on-going process is FAR beyond our human intelligence and our
> ability to get it all figured out in the four dimensional space/time
> that our brains are familiar with.
Father Haskell
Oct 4, 2011, 11:21:06 PM10/4/11
to
environment. They're clumsy on land, but fly like cruise
missiles in their preferred element.
Father Haskell
Oct 5, 2011, 12:17:45 AM10/5/11
to
On Oct 4, 6:59 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:58361e2d-ba3e-4871...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Eww. God cooties.
> > "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:58361e2d-ba3e-4871...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Andrew
Oct 5, 2011, 12:48:08 AM10/5/11
to
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:52aca5ed-b881-44fc...@hd1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
you to accept evidence for the intelligent causation for life's origin.
For, if there was an intelligent causation of life's origin, then there was
a creator. Or should we say with respect - Creator.
And if He's our Creator, then most likely He is the Creator of the whole
universe. For He would be a super, intelligent, all-powerful Creator.
What criteria would be acceptable to show that there was an intelligent
causation for the origin of life?
> Now is there any other way in which I can dumb that down so that even
> you get it?
>
> YES, The Answer is YES.
Your "YES" was in response to my question above, "Then will you
accept the truth, and surrender to the God of creation?" Thank you.
>
> Got that now?
Got it!
> Budikka
>
>
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
>> >> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
>>
>> > You seem very confident, Andrew-a-Blank.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
>> > here in this thread, using published science to
>> > support our arguments?
>>
>> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
>> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
>> you.
>
> Why do you ask this question, and then RUN when I answer in the
> affirmative? Once again, I base my understanding ON THE EVIDENCE.
> Got that numbnuts? because I've explained that to you a gazillion
> times and here you are demanding that everyone understand that you're
> a monumental retard with the attention span of a gad fly.
>
> Here's my statement *yet* *again*: YES, ANDREW, *IF* *YOU* *CAN*
> *PRESENT* *SUFFICIENT* *POSITIVE* *SCIENTIFIC* *EVIDENCE*
> *SUPPORTING * *YOUR * POSITION, then I will accept it.
Now, to proceed...please state precisely what the criteria would be for
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
>> >> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
>>
>> > You seem very confident, Andrew-a-Blank.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
>> > here in this thread, using published science to
>> > support our arguments?
>>
>> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
>> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
>> you.
>
> Why do you ask this question, and then RUN when I answer in the
> affirmative? Once again, I base my understanding ON THE EVIDENCE.
> Got that numbnuts? because I've explained that to you a gazillion
> times and here you are demanding that everyone understand that you're
> a monumental retard with the attention span of a gad fly.
>
> Here's my statement *yet* *again*: YES, ANDREW, *IF* *YOU* *CAN*
> *PRESENT* *SUFFICIENT* *POSITIVE* *SCIENTIFIC* *EVIDENCE*
> *SUPPORTING * *YOUR * POSITION, then I will accept it.
you to accept evidence for the intelligent causation for life's origin.
For, if there was an intelligent causation of life's origin, then there was
a creator. Or should we say with respect - Creator.
And if He's our Creator, then most likely He is the Creator of the whole
universe. For He would be a super, intelligent, all-powerful Creator.
What criteria would be acceptable to show that there was an intelligent
causation for the origin of life?
> Now is there any other way in which I can dumb that down so that even
> you get it?
>
> YES, The Answer is YES.
accept the truth, and surrender to the God of creation?" Thank you.
>
> Got that now?
Got it!
> Budikka
>
>
Andrew
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 2:41:21 AM10/5/11
to
Father Haskell
Oct 5, 2011, 2:42:54 AM10/5/11
to
Why?
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 3:21:27 AM10/5/11
to
Father Haskell wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:41 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Father Haskell wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 4:00 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You mean an amazing amount of evidence that is ignored.
>>
>>> Do you think scientists have it "in" for your god?
>>
>> Of course not. They are simply not looking for the obvious.
>
> Why?
Lack of perception.
> On Oct 5, 2:41 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Father Haskell wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 4:00 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You mean an amazing amount of evidence that is ignored.
>>
>>> Do you think scientists have it "in" for your god?
>>
>> Of course not. They are simply not looking for the obvious.
>
> Why?
Devils Advocaat
Oct 5, 2011, 4:12:52 AM10/5/11
to
MarkA
Oct 5, 2011, 9:36:42 AM10/5/11
to
that what seems obviously true at first glance is often dead wrong on
close examination.
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
Devils Advocaat
Oct 5, 2011, 9:49:45 AM10/5/11
to
actually true.
MarkA
Oct 5, 2011, 9:38:53 AM10/5/11
to
really sure they're around somewhere!
Dakota
Oct 5, 2011, 10:07:59 AM10/5/11
to
somehow support their ancient myths.
Dakota
Oct 5, 2011, 10:38:50 AM10/5/11
to
of a species. No healthy bird has a useless wing.
>
>>> Ask the next cassowary you meet.
>>
>> The next penguin* you meet.
>>
>> JohnN
>>
>> * The penguin: the best bird.
>
> Which *reduced* its wing size to adapt to its underwater
> environment. They're clumsy on land, but fly like cruise
> missiles in their preferred element.
Is it known that penguins once had larger wings? Cruise missile are
>>> Ask the next cassowary you meet.
>>
>> The next penguin* you meet.
>>
>> JohnN
>>
>> * The penguin: the best bird.
>
> Which *reduced* its wing size to adapt to its underwater
> environment. They're clumsy on land, but fly like cruise
> missiles in their preferred element.
flying logs compared to penguins in the water.
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 5, 2011, 11:11:06 AM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:07:59 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
And this loonie claims he's a physicist workingin the aerospace
industry.
VoiceOfReason
Oct 5, 2011, 11:16:20 AM10/5/11
to
;-)
harry k
Oct 5, 2011, 11:49:22 AM10/5/11
to
That is the base problem with all your religious quackery.
Harry K
harry k
Oct 5, 2011, 11:50:31 AM10/5/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I bet he even means it rotatates :)
Harry K
brough, civilization-overview dot com
Oct 5, 2011, 12:05:41 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 2, 10:01 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
>
> The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense
> danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> consistent basis.
>
> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> answered by evolutionists.
>
> danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
> consistent basis.
>
> However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the
> best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not
> answered by evolutionists.
>
> The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much
> too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
>
> This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and
> change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is
> placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of
> generations improving a wing that was useless?
> change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is
> placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of
>
> The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a
> species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from
> natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the
> The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a
> species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from
> smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the
> largest numbers.
>
> According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is
> simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of
> carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb
> trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually
> believe this nonsense.
>
> Yes. They do. Like a religion.
>
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
Have you ever seen flying squirels? The web between legs enables them
to soar down from one height to a lower one very quickly and giving
him an advantage over other squirels. It was an advantage even when
it began to evolve and so led to more web. There are all kinds of
birds that have wings they use to make large "hops" such as the
ostrich. A smaller wing still could have been used to run faster by
lightening the load.
Have you ever met a scientist who thinks we know everything? Only the
Bible claims that . Scientists are always figuiring out and getting an
increasingly more accurate picture of the real, natural world and how
it got the way it is. There are a number of ways wings could have
evolved but it is a bit difficult to determine now what way it did
evolve because we weren't there.
Why do you have four sharp canine teeth in your mouth? Did they get
there because God wanted you to have them, that he wanted you to know
you were just another omnivorous animal?
It really makes no sense to say evolution works on some things but it
could not work on some others and is therefore "nonesense." It would
be arrogant for scientists or anyone else to say that everything or
even anything can be COMPLETELY explained or that some things can
NEVER be explained.
brough
http://civilization-overview.com
The Magpie
Oct 5, 2011, 12:18:50 PM10/5/11
to
On 04/10/2011 23:07, Andrew wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:60Eiq.574$lE4...@newsfe07.ams2...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:60Eiq.574$lE4...@newsfe07.ams2...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
>>>> here in this thread, using published science to
>>>> support our arguments?
>>>
>>> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
>>> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
>>> you.
>>>
>>>> here in this thread, using published science to
>>>> support our arguments?
>>>
>>> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
>>> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
>>> you.
>>>
>> You seem to misunderstand the word "debate".
>
> What's the purpose if one refuses to accept
> the implications of the evidence presented?
>
You didn't mention evidence.
>
> What's the purpose if one refuses to accept
> the implications of the evidence presented?
>
You suggested "debate" requires one to "accept the truth" and to
"surrender to the god of creation".
That isn't debate - as you yourself said, it is "surrender".
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 2:57:15 PM10/5/11
to
The word "Lack" does not mean refuse. Please learn ENGLISH
Malte Runz
Oct 5, 2011, 3:34:55 PM10/5/11
to
"Dakota" skrev i meddelelsen news:j6hq5n$32f$1...@dont-email.me...> Is it known that penguins once had larger wings? ...
Google 'waimanu'. Look at the bones and the reconstructions based on them.
> ... Cruise missile are flying logs compared to penguins in the water.
--
Malte Runz
Devils Advocaat
Oct 5, 2011, 4:44:17 PM10/5/11
to
response?
Budikka666
Oct 5, 2011, 5:37:27 PM10/5/11
to
completely useless - he can't even help you find the guts to take me
on, and he's never done *anything* to support you. A smart person
would remember that next time he had the lousy idea of trying to
convert us. Naturally we don't expect *you* to remember it.
Budikka
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 6:15:37 PM10/5/11
to
Larry Hewitt wrote:
>
> Larry
Would that be anything like the conjecture and fantasy it takes to believe a segment of a
population of fish can give rise to mammals?
> On 10/4/2011 6:07 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:60Eiq.574$lE4...@newsfe07.ams2...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
>>>>> here in this thread, using published science to
>>>>> support our arguments?
>>>>
>>>> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
>>>> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>> You seem to misunderstand the word "debate".
>>
>> What's the purpose if one refuses to accept
>> the implications of the evidence presented?
>>
>>
> Because no evidnece was submitted, only conjecture and fantasy.
>> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:60Eiq.574$lE4...@newsfe07.ams2...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you and I debate that very topic right
>>>>> here in this thread, using published science to
>>>>> support our arguments?
>>>>
>>>> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
>>>> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>> You seem to misunderstand the word "debate".
>>
>> What's the purpose if one refuses to accept
>> the implications of the evidence presented?
>>
>>
>
> Larry
Would that be anything like the conjecture and fantasy it takes to believe a segment of a
population of fish can give rise to mammals?
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 6:23:39 PM10/5/11
to
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 6:40:10 PM10/5/11
to
cowardly, because they already know that science cannot test for God. Therefore, they
already know that presenting scientific evidence is impossible.
However, they will refuse to say what other kinds of evidence would be acceptable. This is
how they stay safe and warm inside their box of evolution.
It is easy to say "I do not believe there is a god because there is no evidence for god"
when the only evidence that is acceptable is evidence that cannot be provided.
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 6:58:18 PM10/5/11
to
Buddythunder wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:00 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Robert Weldon wrote:
>>> "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
If only you would accept it....
> On Oct 5, 9:00 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Robert Weldon wrote:
>>> "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> The teacher of evolution is limited only by the limit of his
>>>>>>>> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
>>
>>>>>>>> imagination and the credulity of those who listen to him.
>>
>>>>>>> As opposed to the believer, who expresses absolute falsehoods
>>>>>>> with an equally absolute lack of honest intellectual
>>>>>>> uncertainty.
>>
>>>>>>> conan
>>
>>>>>> The irony is that science has shown us, over and over again, that
>>>>>> Nature is infinitely more imaginative than people are. It doesn't
>>>>>> take much imagination to postulate that someone just like your
>>>>>> dad, only perfect, made everything be the way it is.
>>
>>>>> And people have been imagining one throughout recorded history.
>>
>>>> And they have been right.
>>
>>> Except of course, for the amazing lack of any evidence of the
>>> existance of said god(s)
>>
>>>>>>> with an equally absolute lack of honest intellectual
>>>>>>> uncertainty.
>>
>>>>>>> conan
>>
>>>>>> The irony is that science has shown us, over and over again, that
>>>>>> Nature is infinitely more imaginative than people are. It doesn't
>>>>>> take much imagination to postulate that someone just like your
>>>>>> dad, only perfect, made everything be the way it is.
>>
>>>>> And people have been imagining one throughout recorded history.
>>
>>>> And they have been right.
>>
>>> Except of course, for the amazing lack of any evidence of the
>>> existance of said god(s)
>>
>> You mean an amazing amount of evidence that is ignored.
>
> If only you would provide it...
>
If only you would accept it....
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 6:59:27 PM10/5/11
to
Poor DA. He thinks LACK = REFUSE
Virgil
Oct 5, 2011, 7:00:08 PM10/5/11
to
In article <j6imcb$c31$1...@dont-email.me>,
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > And if He's our Creator, then most likely He is the Creator of the
> > whole universe. For He would be a super, intelligent, all-powerful
> > Creator. What criteria would be acceptable to show that there was
> > an intelligent causation for the origin of life?
>
> They will never answer. Instead they will say, "Present the evidence
> you have." This cowardly, because they already know that science
> cannot test for God. Therefore, they already know that presenting
> scientific evidence is impossible.
And they also know that scientific evidence is that most reliable form
of evidence, so that no one who wishes certainty should accept anything
less.
is good enough, and since creationists won't even accept that sort of
evidence, they can hardly argue that anything less reliable is
and natural evidence that science accepted in establishing Evolution,
what sort of evidence do you claim is MORE reliable that what you
already rejected?
evidence which establishes Evolution, so until you can justify your
evidence as being MORE reliable than what you have already rejected, you
can hardly complain.
--
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > And if He's our Creator, then most likely He is the Creator of the
> > whole universe. For He would be a super, intelligent, all-powerful
> > Creator. What criteria would be acceptable to show that there was
> > an intelligent causation for the origin of life?
>
> They will never answer. Instead they will say, "Present the evidence
> you have." This cowardly, because they already know that science
> cannot test for God. Therefore, they already know that presenting
> scientific evidence is impossible.
of evidence, so that no one who wishes certainty should accept anything
less.
>
> However, they will refuse to say what other kinds of evidence would
> be acceptable.
If one is looking for certainty, nothing less than the bets of evidence
> However, they will refuse to say what other kinds of evidence would
> be acceptable.
is good enough, and since creationists won't even accept that sort of
evidence, they can hardly argue that anything less reliable is
acceptable.
> This is how they stay safe and warm inside their box
> of evolution.
If you reject Evolution, and therefore necessarily reject the scientific
> This is how they stay safe and warm inside their box
> of evolution.
and natural evidence that science accepted in establishing Evolution,
what sort of evidence do you claim is MORE reliable that what you
already rejected?
>
> It is easy to say "I do not believe there is a god because there is
> no evidence for god" when the only evidence that is acceptable is
> evidence that cannot be provided.
You already set the standard by rejecting the scientific and natural
> It is easy to say "I do not believe there is a god because there is
> no evidence for god" when the only evidence that is acceptable is
> evidence that cannot be provided.
evidence which establishes Evolution, so until you can justify your
evidence as being MORE reliable than what you have already rejected, you
can hardly complain.
--
Budikka666
Oct 5, 2011, 6:54:03 PM10/5/11
to
chimpanzees are the same kind *and* that there is no evidence for any
god.
So what's keeping you from being just like us atheists? The fact that
you're a pathological LIAR. Stop telling lies and you can join our
gang.
Budikka
Budikka666
Oct 5, 2011, 7:05:45 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 5:40 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> They will never answer. Instead they will say, "Present the evidence you have." This
> cowardly, because they already know that science cannot test for God. Therefore, they
> already know that presenting scientific evidence is impossible.
>
> However, they will refuse to say what other kinds of evidence would be acceptable.
Caught in another outright LIE.
> cowardly, because they already know that science cannot test for God. Therefore, they
> already know that presenting scientific evidence is impossible.
>
> However, they will refuse to say what other kinds of evidence would be acceptable.
How many times have I posted this EXACT offer (go Google it you LYING
piece of shit):
1. Provide *positive* *scientific* evidence for a creator or for a
creation
***OR*** <<<<<<-----------------< NOTE THIS, you LIAR
2. Provide *independent* *objective* evidence for a creator or for a
creation
***OR*** <<<<<<-----------------< NOTE THIS, you LIAR
3. Provide an intelligent rationale for a creator of for a creation
So you are a LIAR! but we all know that. Nothing new there.
What you don't realize is that once again one of you numbnuts whiny-
assed creationists has openly admitted that his god is completely
useless! lol!
You claim you have the one true god who is omniscient and omnipotent
and who desperately wants us to turn to him, and yet you can't find a
away to win us over to your position - and neither can this pathetic
little god of yours?
How ridiculous is that? Seriously!
Think about this for a minute, folks. Savor it. Embrace it warmly.
Think about what All Flee & Hide is openly and freely admitting here
about his beliefs and about his fake god - about how completely,
absolutely, eternally and utterly worthless his god is, how weak and
hopeless he is; how sad and lost his position is; how terminally
beaten the creationists are.
Budikka
Virgil
Oct 5, 2011, 7:05:48 PM10/5/11
to
In article <j6ildc$5vj$1...@dont-email.me>,
--
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> >The interesting thing about the creatures that moved onto the
> >land is that all of them had *four* limbs. For quite a while, all
> >of these creatures needed all four legs in order to move because
> >none of them could stand on two legs. But then Mr. Evolution came
> >along and invented some creatures that could! Since they no
> >longer needed their front limbs as legs, they became... you know
> >the answer... come on... yes, that's right! Arms! Very well done.
Or Wings. Even some mammals developed wings from their forelegs.
> >The interesting thing about the creatures that moved onto the
> >land is that all of them had *four* limbs. For quite a while, all
> >of these creatures needed all four legs in order to move because
> >none of them could stand on two legs. But then Mr. Evolution came
> >along and invented some creatures that could! Since they no
> >longer needed their front limbs as legs, they became... you know
> >the answer... come on... yes, that's right! Arms! Very well done.
--
All-Seeing-|
Oct 5, 2011, 7:46:00 PM10/5/11
to
Don't worry. I'll put it back, OK?
However, they will refuse to say what other kinds of evidence would
Andre Lieven
Oct 5, 2011, 7:52:44 PM10/5/11
to
Ralph
Oct 5, 2011, 8:42:44 PM10/5/11
to
> However, they will refuse to say what other kinds of evidence would be acceptable. This is
> how they stay safe and warm inside their box of evolution.
> > It is easy to say "I do not believe there is a god because there is no evidence for god"
> when the only evidence that is acceptable is evidence that cannot be provided.
doesn't exist.
Steve Hayes
Oct 6, 2011, 1:27:22 AM10/6/11
to
Why do people hide what they want to say behind incomprehensible subject
lines?
lines?
These are some that I saw in newsgroups today:
All Flee And Hide Again Admits That There's NO EVIDENCE For Any Gods
Pie Eating Zombies Tank Civilization For Vestigial Ideological Profit Laughs
KKUP 91.5 FM ---> Robert Rankin' (Robert Lohse), Spliff Skankin' A.I.D.S. &
Infections
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
MarkA
Oct 6, 2011, 8:01:21 AM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:49:45 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:36 pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> true.
That usually happens after you have shown a counter-intuitive belief to be
true. Like Newton saying that the planets are following the same law of
gravity as the apple that falls from a tree. "Obviously", if that
were true, all the planets would fall to Earth. Duh.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
> On Oct 5, 2:36 pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:12:52 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> > On Oct 5, 8:21 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >> Father Haskell wrote:
>> >> > On Oct 5, 2:41 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Father Haskell wrote:
>> >> >>> On Oct 4, 4:00 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> You mean an amazing amount of evidence that is ignored.
>>
>> >> >>> Do you think scientists have it "in" for your god?
>>
>> >> >> Of course not. They are simply not looking for the obvious.
>>
>> >> > Why?
>>
>> >> Lack of perception.
>>
>> > You mean they refuse to see what isn't there?
>>
>> > On Oct 5, 8:21 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >> Father Haskell wrote:
>> >> > On Oct 5, 2:41 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Father Haskell wrote:
>> >> >>> On Oct 4, 4:00 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> You mean an amazing amount of evidence that is ignored.
>>
>> >> >>> Do you think scientists have it "in" for your god?
>>
>> >> >> Of course not. They are simply not looking for the obvious.
>>
>> >> > Why?
>>
>> >> Lack of perception.
>>
>> > You mean they refuse to see what isn't there?
>>
>> That's the funny thing about science: it has an annoying tendency to
>> show that what seems obviously true at first glance is often dead wrong
>> on close examination.
>
> And alternatively it can show people what they think is false is actually
>> show that what seems obviously true at first glance is often dead wrong
>> on close examination.
>
> true.
That usually happens after you have shown a counter-intuitive belief to be
true. Like Newton saying that the planets are following the same law of
gravity as the apple that falls from a tree. "Obviously", if that
were true, all the planets would fall to Earth. Duh.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Ivan I. Deer
Oct 6, 2011, 8:22:50 AM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:01:21 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:49:45 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 2:36 pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:12:52 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> > On Oct 5, 8:21 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> >> Father Haskell wrote:
>>> >> > On Oct 5, 2:41 am, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> Father Haskell wrote:
>>> >> >>> On Oct 4, 4:00 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >>>> You mean an amazing amount of evidence that is ignored.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Do you think scientists have it "in" for your god?
>>>
>>> >> >> Of course not. They are simply not looking for the obvious.
>>>
>>> >> > Why?
>>>
>>> >> Lack of perception.
>>>
>>> > You mean they refuse to see what isn't there?
>>>
>>> That's the funny thing about science: it has an annoying tendency to
>>> show that what seems obviously true at first glance is often dead wrong
>>> on close examination.
>>
>> And alternatively it can show people what they think is false is actually
>> true.
>
>That usually happens after you have shown a counter-intuitive belief to be
>true. Like Newton saying that the planets are following the same law of
>gravity as the apple that falls from a tree. "Obviously", if that
>were true, all the planets would fall to Earth. Duh.
>
Yeah, and placid water is flat. The ocean shore line under calm
conditions defines a plane which extends as far as humans have ever
traveled. Conclusion...the earth is flat as a pancake!
Devils Advocaat
Oct 6, 2011, 8:30:24 AM10/6/11
to
Still you are not reading for comprehension.
After all I didn't say anything that could be taken as my saying what
you claim.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages