When Know-It-Alls KNOW NOTHING -- Re: Creationism
edco...@sunlink.net
"Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com> wrote to nz.soc.religion:
>
> <edco...@sunlink.net> wrote in message
news:8vit2n$6u1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > Just adding my two cents' worth...
> >
> > MAN AS OLD AS COAL
> > and
> > PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
> >
> > (Two for the price of one)
> >
> > Ed Conrad
> > http://www.edconrad.com
> >
> > or (for pseudoscientists' eyes ONLY)
> >
> > http://www.monumental-conspiracy.com
>
> Oh God! another amateur who thinks he knows more than the whole
> scientific establishment.
=======================================================
I DO, Robert! I assure you, I certainly do!
At least when it comes to the colossal coverup by the
Scientific Establishment regarding its erroneous theory
of man's ancestral emergence from some insignificant animal.
It has no scientific evidence WHATSOEVER to back up its
absurd theory.
Meanwhile, it has resorted to every dishonest means of denying
physical evidence that opens the door to the truth -- and such
evidence is the discovery of petrified human bones AND petrified
human soft organs between anthracite veins, meaning man indeed
is as old as coal, and therefore multi-millions of years older
than even the oldest of man's most remote (and farfetched) animal
ancestor.
As for me, Robert, you and your colleagues' sticks and stones
will break my bones but names will never hurt me.
But have you NO respect for the educated opinion of Wilton M. Krogman
considered one of the world's leading human anatomists for
decades?
Krogman specifically identified one of the specimens found in
Pennsylvania's coal-bearing strata as a calvarium, a portion of
a human cranium (with the eye sockets broken off).
A CATSCAN and other scientific testing has confirmed that Krogman,
author of "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine," was 100
percent correct -- and this included his suggestion that an
infrared-scan be performed on one of my key specimens (which he
identified as a premolar tooth) that confirmed, scientifically,
that its origin was "tooth or bone."
Call me a screwball if you want (and which I ain't) but, with your
pseudoscientific ramblings, you are tarnishing the highly respected
name of one of the most respected medical professionals (and
super-scientists) who ever lived.
Meanwhile, the great Raymond Dart, M.D. -- human anatomist and
anthropolgoist -- also examined some of the specimens discovered
between anthracite veins and, in a letter bearing his signature,
stated emphatically that they are indeed petrified bone.
Need I mention the incredible sabotage to which these incredible
discoveres had been subjected to by the Scientific Establishment?
Need I say more than certain of its so-called most prestigious
institutions had ACTUALLY TAMPERED with physical evidence -- or
played games by twisting and evading the truth.
Fortunately, they were caught redhanded in their well-orchestrated
conspiracy to deny evidence -- i.e. the Smithsonian Institution,
the University of California (at Berkeley), Johns Hopkins University,
Penn State University, Andrew MacRae (then at the University of
Calgary)... among others (and the list is LONG).
IMAGINE, Andrew MacRae being entrusted to examine a ground section
of what Krogman identified as a portion of a petrified tibia,
then presenting a microscopic view of the internal structure
of a facsimile rock or concretion instead of the internal structure
of the specimen in question (EC96-001).
Andrew MacRae's fraudulent testing results appear on my web
page -- edconrad.com -- where you'll also get a distasteful
dose of the Smithsonian Shenanigans as well as hear the sad tale
of the despicable behavior by the pseudos at the University of
California (at Berkeley).
Unfortunately, Robert, from what I've read, you are all talk
and no action (no physical evidence to back up your big mouth).
But here's a golden opportunity to prove me wrong.
Do your fellow pseudos a gigantic favor and present a teaspoon-full
of physical scientific evidence backing up man's direct link to
ANY animal that had ever lived.
Then, if you want to talk, we'll talk. And if you want to argue,
we'll argue.
Please be forewarned that facts and evidence will beat rhetoric and
gibberish evey day, even on Sundays. But lots of patience is required.
Personally, I frankly admit I DO NOT KNOW if there IS a God and,
if there is, was He responsible for our very being?
But I DO KNOW that the evolutionary theory of man's origin and
ancestry definitely has no basis in fact (or even theory), so
true science demands its total annihilation and removal
from all the scientific textbooks, from Tahibit to Timbuktoo.
You see, Robert, we couldn't possibly have evolved from some
pipsqueak insectivore (or any other animal) of 10, 20 or 100 million
years ago, not if our ancestors had existed in almost our present
form during the coal-forming Carboniferous age some 280 million years
ago.
And, you may or may not know, the age of anthracite is considered
one of the most golden rules of geology.
Ed Conrad
edconrad.com
========================================================
>Paleontologists in the field have to scan the ground
very
> carefully for signs of fossils. One of the problems is many rocks
among the
> millions lying around look like fossils. But experience tells the
expert
> what is a true fossil and what is merely a rock shaped look-a-like.
Fossils
> have a certain characteristic look and feel about them which makes
them
> different from the surrounding rocks.
>
> It is obvious the expert at the Smithsonian could tell instantly a
piece of
> rock shaped like a skull was not a true fossil. The perfunctory
dismissal of
> his object probably made Conrad feel rejected so of course he is not
wrong
> but is the victim of a giant conspiracy. From the point of view of the
> scientist if he wasted time examing every odd rock shape which turned
up he
> would never get any legitimate work done.
>
> Bob Howard.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
P&D Schultz
> <...> the colossal coverup by the
> Scientific Establishment <...>
How can you people NOT see how hilariously loopy you sound? Now tell us
about the Kennedy assassination coverup, and the aliens at Roswell.
\\P. Schultz
He
Please do deliver your messages issuing this
to a proper newsgroup for this purpose only.
This newsgroup is for genealogical discussion.
spec...@home.com
_varicose_ veins and I was going to say no way, man, you couldn't fit
a skull in there!
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:16:45 GMT, edco...@sunlink.net wrote:
>In article <8vjulh$ehg$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> "Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com> wrote to nz.soc.religion:
>>
>> <edco...@sunlink.net> wrote in message
>news:8vit2n$6u1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >
>> >...
Spinoff
you witness yourself. Since much of our scientific knowledge is based upon
theory, we must conclude that everything we know is conjecture.
You discredit yourself when you resort to phrases such as "colossal coverup
by the
Scientific Establishment" and "no scientific evidence WHATSOEVER". I submit
that unless you can claim to have observed something other than your own
personal theories, you should back off with the kooky rhetoric.
PS... Speaking of "absurd theory" - a massive conspiracy of scientists is
beyond belief. Scientists, like artists, are enormously individualistic. I
can't think of another field where the life expectancy of any conspiracy
would be predictably short.
W F Sill
>PS... Speaking of "absurd theory" - a massive conspiracy of scientists is
>beyond belief. Scientists, like artists, are enormously individualistic. I
>can't think of another field where the life expectancy of any conspiracy
>would be predictably short.
Much of what passes for conspiracy is actually the result of
ignorance, incompetence and the old gamne of follow-the-leader.
Contrary to popular belief, scientists are not super-intellectuals
smarter than the rest of us -- they are mere mortals. As such, they
tend to avoid controversy. This is partricularly true when they are
in the university system, where ONLY the currently-fashionable
theories are taught & tolerated.
Imagine the ridicule that would descend upon a student of archeology
or anthropology should he/she take the POV that only Divine Creation
can account for the evidence!!
Well, you don't have to imagine. Watch what happens in any forum when
that POV is expressed. Even here in alt.genealogy, where no person in
the history of the world has produced credible evidence of a non-human
ancestor, there are a strident few who trot out their most virulent
insults whenever the topic is broached.
Will Sill KD3XR
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but
in the end it leads to death" Prov 14:12 NIV
Heather Figueroa
again!!!
Please.....no one add to my post, as he will just go on and on and on
and...........
Heather
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:eeqa2t0l6b28o6o8g...@4ax.com...
> Not long ago, "Spinoff" <chuc...@thebank.net> wrote to several NG's:
>
> >PS... Speaking of "absurd theory" - a massive conspiracy of scientists is
> >beyond belief. Scientists, like artists, are enormously individualistic.
I
> >can't think of another field where the life expectancy of any conspiracy
> >would be predictably short.
>
> Much of what passes for conspiracy is actually the result of
snipped.....
W F Sill
>Imagine the ridicule that would descend upon a student of archeology
>or anthropology should he/she take the POV that only Divine Creation
>can account for the evidence!!
>
>Well, you don't have to imagine. Watch what happens in any forum
>when that POV is expressed. Even here in alt.genealogy, where no
>person in the history of the world has produced credible evidence
>of a non-human ancestor, there are a strident few who trot out their
>most virulent insults whenever the topic is broached.
Now comes "Heather Figueroa" <heat...@sprint.ca> to prove the point
as only she can:
>Put a sock in it, Sill!!! We are not going to get into this dumb argument
>again!!!
>
>Please.....no one add to my post, as he will just go on and on and on
>and...........
Thank you Heather. Feel free to keep this going as long as you like.
P&D Schultz
> <...>
> Much of what passes for conspiracy is actually the result of
All your own beliefs are based on the old game of "follow The Leader."
Right? Now think about that. Unless even that sort of thinking is
sinful.
\\P. Schultz
P&D Schultz
>
> Not long ago, P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >All your own beliefs are based on the old game of "follow The Leader."
> >Right? Now think about that. Unless even that sort of thinking is
> >sinful.
>
> attracts nastygrams likie flies to honey.
There was nothing remotely "nasty" about my postings. Unless anything
critical of your opinions is automatically nasty. Now, that's not a very
Christian attitude, is it? Go say your prayers.
\\P. Schultz
W F Sill
>All your own beliefs are based on the old game of "follow The Leader."
>Right? Now think about that. Unless even that sort of thinking is
>sinful.
Wrong, but thanx for proving that Divine Creation is an idea that
attracts nastygrams likie flies to honey.
Will Sill KD3XR ---- Curmudgeon in training
I don't know all the answers - but you don't know
all the questions either, right?
hrgr...@my-deja.com
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
> Not long ago, "Spinoff" <chuc...@thebank.net> wrote to several NG's:
>
> >PS... Speaking of "absurd theory" - a massive conspiracy of
scientists is
> >beyond belief. Scientists, like artists, are enormously
individualistic. I
> >can't think of another field where the life expectancy of any
conspiracy
> >would be predictably short.
>
> ignorance, incompetence and the old gamne of follow-the-leader.
> smarter than the rest of us -- they are mere mortals. As such, they
> tend to avoid controversy. This is partricularly true when they are
> in the university system, where ONLY the currently-fashionable
> theories are taught & tolerated.
>
> or anthropology should he/she take the POV that only Divine Creation
> can account for the evidence!!
Well, since he would abandon the methodology of science with this PoV,
perhaps this ridicule would not be undeserved.
Imagine a mathematician who argued that all odd numbers are prime:
"This is true for 3,5,7, 11, and 13. 9 is an obvious measurement error
and in reality *is* prime. Thus all odd numbers are prime".
Deserves ridicule ? Of course. He is abandoning the methodology of
mathematics. The analogy to your hypothetical archaeologist should be
obvious.
HRG.
> Well, you don't have to imagine. Watch what happens in any forum when
> that POV is expressed. Even here in alt.genealogy, where no person in
> the history of the world has produced credible evidence of a non-human
> ancestor, there are a strident few who trot out their most virulent
> insults whenever the topic is broached.
>
> Will Sill KD3XR
> "There is a way that seems right to a man, but
> in the end it leads to death" Prov 14:12 NIV
>
Lesley Robertson
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:eeqa2t0l6b28o6o8g...@4ax.com...
> Much of what passes for conspiracy is actually the result of
> ignorance, incompetence and the old gamne of follow-the-leader.
> Contrary to popular belief, scientists are not super-intellectuals
> smarter than the rest of us -- they are mere mortals. As such, they
> tend to avoid controversy. This is partricularly true when they are
> in the university system, where ONLY the currently-fashionable
> theories are taught & tolerated.
You're obviously familiar with a different set of Universities and
scientists to the ones I know! Nothing quite like generalisation, is there?
Lesley Robertson
W F Sill
>You're obviously familiar with a different set of Universities and
>scientists to the ones I know! Nothing quite like generalisation, is there?
>Lesley Robertson
Thank you, too, for illustrating the point. Can you name any secular
university not teaching some form of evolution (as an explanation for
thge existence of man) as virtual fact?
I thought not.
W F Sill
of my POV, expressed when I wrote:
>> Imagine the ridicule that would descend upon a student of archeology
>> or anthropology should he/she take the POV that only Divine Creation
>> can account for the evidence!!
>
>Well, since he would abandon the methodology of science with this PoV,
>perhaps this ridicule would not be undeserved.
<remaining protestations snipped>
You just don't get it, do you? Well, I can't say as I blame you in
view of the widespread acceptance of the concept of accidental
creation of life and apes as human ancestors. Feel free to come
forward with credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that
you personally have a non-human ancestor. Names, dates and proof
that satisfies the so-called scientific method would surely be
welcomed as a HUGE breakthrough by the academic world. You would be
justly famous.
Lesley Robertson
> Not long ago, "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@stm.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>
> >You're obviously familiar with a different set of Universities and
> >scientists to the ones I know! Nothing quite like generalisation, is
there?
> >Lesley Robertson
>
> Thank you, too, for illustrating the point. Can you name any secular
> university not teaching some form of evolution (as an explanation for
> thge existence of man) as virtual fact?
>
generalisation that all scientists avoid controversy.
There's no controversy where creationism is concerned - it's a religious
belief attached to one of the many religions previously or currently active
in the world. It has little to do with available facts. I would be more than
interested to know how creationism explains the extremely close relationship
between the DNA found in humans and the other great apes?
You seem to expect us to respect your views, while reserving the right to be
as aggressive and rude about ours as possible....
Lesley Robertson
W F Sill
Les:
> >You're obviously familiar with a different set of Universities and
>> >scientists to the ones I know! Nothing quite like generalisation, is
>there?
Will:
>> Thank you, too, for illustrating the point. Can you name any secular
>> university not teaching some form of evolution (as an explanation for
>> the existence of man) as virtual fact?
Les, ducking the question entirely, writes:
>Which particular point did you have in mind?
Forgive me for not reposting lots of verbiage: The point was that
those of us who believe Divine Creation as the only rational
explanation for the origin & existance of mankind are frequently the
subject of great hostility - which you have yourself demonstrated.
> . . . . I was referring to your generalisation that all scientists avoid controversy.
I did not say that. I said it was the norm for them to do so.
>There's no controversy where creationism is concerned - it's a religious
>belief attached to one of the many religions previously or currently active
>in the world. It has little to do with available facts.
You making that statement does not make it so. In fact is is a
demonstrably _false_ statement. There is a LOT of controversy and a
lot of evidence & facts. We don't agree on what the facts are, and
interpret evidence differently. That's called controversy. There are
a number (however small) of "non-religious" scientists who are willing
to admit that Divine Creation is a more plausible theory than the
currently popular "big bang" ideas and the incalculably huge
probabilities involved for accidental occurence of life. They are
usually dismissed by their colleagues as 'religious fanatics' - which
was and is my point referred to above.
>. . . . .I would be more than
>interested to know how creationism explains the extremely close relationship
>between the DNA found in humans and the other great apes?
I am not a spokesperson for "Creationism" - many who claim to be are
as much in error as their fellow theorists. I don't thoroughly
understand DNA and bet you don't either. What would it prove if a
snail and an elephant had some DNA similarities? Only that they are
both living creatures.
>You seem to expect us to respect your views, while reserving the
>right to be as aggressive and rude about ours as possible....
I reserve the right to challenge your views. It is you who choose to
attribute rudeness to disagreement. I do not have one iota of respect
for idiotic ideas, though I do not necessarily dismiss as idiots all
who mistakenly believe false ideas.
When you can produce credible evidence of a non-human ancestor, report
back. In the meantime, this is a genealogy NG, in which rational
people consider our family histories. MY family does not contain any
actual jackasses. Does yours?
Paul R. Andersen
>
> You just don't get it, do you? Well, I can't say as I blame you in
> view of the widespread acceptance of the concept of accidental
> creation of life and apes as human ancestors. Feel free to come
> forward with credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that
> you personally have a non-human ancestor. Names, dates and proof
> that satisfies the so-called scientific method would surely be
> welcomed as a HUGE breakthrough by the academic world. You would be
> justly famous.
>
> Will Sill KD3XR
Am I correct if I suspect that you also do not believe that stars are
just like our sun because no one has been to one to bring back evidence
in their hand? Do you believe the sun is a second or third generation
star within the Milky Way galaxy? Do you have any doubt that the galaxy
and universe have been changing over time? Do you think the earth
started out with an atmosphere suitable for life as we see it today?
Is the 'family tree' of species that can be defined by studying DNA all
wrong? I suspect I know your answer to this one since you seem to feel
that scientists are pretty much all fools.
I just don't believe that evolution and (un-provable) divine creation
cannot co-exist. I know plenty of religious scientists and I know
ministers who believe in evolution. Proof that co-existence is possible
anyway.
--
Paul Andersen
+++++++++++++
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no
difference between theory and practice; but in practice there is.
W F Sill
>Am I correct if I suspect that you also do not believe that stars are
>just like our sun because no one has been to one to bring back evidence
>in their hand? Do you believe the sun is a second or third generation
>star within the Milky Way galaxy? Do you have any doubt that the galaxy
>and universe have been changing over time? Do you think the earth
>started out with an atmosphere suitable for life as we see it today?
>
>Is the 'family tree' of species that can be defined by studying DNA all
>wrong?
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to report that you have failed to pass your mind-reading
test. I suggest you take up some other hobby, because as a psychic
you are a failure. You have missed the mark so far that I suspect you
applied for this position in error.
Sincerely, but with tongue in cheek,
Merlin
PS - I see you also wrote:
>I just don't believe that evolution and (un-provable) divine creation
>cannot co-exist. I know plenty of religious scientists and I know
>ministers who believe in evolution. Proof that co-existence is possible
>anyway.
At least you have the good sense not to declare flatly that Divine
Creation is not impossible. Congratulations.
Derek Stevenson
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
> You just don't get it, do you? Well, I can't say as I blame you in
> view of the widespread acceptance of the concept of accidental
> creation of life and apes as human ancestors. Feel free to come
> forward with credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that
> you personally have a non-human ancestor. Names, dates and proof
> that satisfies the so-called scientific method would surely be
> welcomed as a HUGE breakthrough by the academic world. You would be
> justly famous.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the practice of issuing birth
certificates postdates by a considerable margin the emergence of H.
sapiens sapiens.
W F Sill
challenge (Egad, where do these skeptics come from?) my statement
that:
>> You just don't get it, do you? Well, I can't say as I blame you in
>> view of the widespread acceptance of the concept of accidental
>> creation of life and apes as human ancestors. Feel free to come
>> forward with credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that
>> you personally have a non-human ancestor. Names, dates and proof
>> that satisfies the so-called scientific method would surely be
>> welcomed as a HUGE breakthrough by the academic world. You would be
>> justly famous.
Says Derek:
>This may come as a surprise to you, but the practice of issuing birth
>certificates postdates by a considerable margin the emergence of H.
>sapiens sapiens.
What is the relevance of this argument? If you're saying there's no
record, I couldn't agree more! I further suggest there is _no_
credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that, as I wrote,
you personally have a non-human ancestor.
Also, when I wrote "Names, dates and proof that satisfies the
so-called scientific method. . . " I did not mention birth
certificates. Other truly credible proofs would be a sensation.
z
but 'Evolution is Wrong!'. Try posting 'I believe that evolution is the
way God creates species' and see if you get the same reaction.
2) It's not 'Divine Creation' that elicits the negative reaction, but
its random appearance into discussions where it isn't relevant, and
the 'No compromise, no disagreement, God said it, I believe it, that
settles it' nature of the proponents. Try posting into a fundamentalist
forum with 'There is no evidence for creationism. Evolution is the best
theory to account for the mass of evidence' and see if you get a warm
reception.
In article <t99b2t8k8trh5bs51...@4ax.com>,
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
z
chimps interact for an hour on Discovery or Animal Planet?
In article <f4hc2tgvfkohgrp3e...@4ax.com>,
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
> Feel free to come
> forward with credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that
> you personally have a non-human ancestor. Names, dates and proof
> that satisfies the so-called scientific method would surely be
> welcomed as a HUGE breakthrough by the academic world. You would be
> justly famous.
>
> Will Sill KD3XR
> "There is a way that seems right to a man, but
> in the end it leads to death" Prov 14:12 NIV
>
>
z
sum, credible to a huge number of skeptical and inquiring and bright
scientific minds who have and currently still are spending most of
every day puzzling and worrying and asking what if and poking into the
evidence. What you are saying, is that there is no evidence which is
credible *to you*; or, more likely, no evidence that you cannot somehow
discount. That is a different matter.
In article <d8pc2tsq00bukgqnl...@4ax.com>,
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
> Not long ago, Derek Stevenson <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote to
> challenge (Egad, where do these skeptics come from?) my statement
> that:
>
> >> You just don't get it, do you? Well, I can't say as I blame you
in
> >> view of the widespread acceptance of the concept of accidental
> >> creation of life and apes as human ancestors. Feel free to come
> >> forward with credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK)
that
> >> you personally have a non-human ancestor. Names, dates and proof
> >> that satisfies the so-called scientific method would surely be
> >> welcomed as a HUGE breakthrough by the academic world. You would
be
> >> justly famous.
>
> Says Derek:
>
> >This may come as a surprise to you, but the practice of issuing birth
> >certificates postdates by a considerable margin the emergence of H.
> >sapiens sapiens.
>
> What is the relevance of this argument? If you're saying there's no
> record, I couldn't agree more! I further suggest there is _no_
> credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that, as I wrote,
> you personally have a non-human ancestor.
>
> Also, when I wrote "Names, dates and proof that satisfies the
> so-called scientific method. . . " I did not mention birth
> certificates. Other truly credible proofs would be a sensation.
>
> Will Sill KD3XR
> "There is a way that seems right to a man, but
> in the end it leads to death" Prov 14:12 NIV
>
W F Sill
>I gotta ask this.... have you ever *seen* a monkey? Watched a group of
>chimps interact for an hour on Discovery or Animal Planet?
Yup. Smarter than Al Gore, right?
W F Sill
>1) It's not 'Divine Creation' that elicits the negative reaction,
>but 'Evolution is Wrong!'. Try posting 'I believe that evolution is the
>way God creates species' and see if you get the same reaction.
I'm aware that such a view has some supporters (not including yrs
trly), but one could state that water was wet and get a rise outa
SOME people! And BTW I have never stated that "evolution is wrong" -
only that I don't believe it accounts for the origins of life or for
the existence of wildly different species.
>2) It's not 'Divine Creation' that elicits the negative reaction, but
>its random appearance into discussions where it isn't relevant, and
>the 'No compromise, no disagreement, God said it, I believe it, that
>settles it' nature of the proponents. Try posting into a fundamentalist
>forum with 'There is no evidence for creationism. Evolution is the best
>theory to account for the mass of evidence' and see if you get a warm
>reception.
Don't write like an idiot and you'll get more respect. I did not say
those things and you are being disingenuous (not to say lying) to
imply that I did. Instead I responded, in a genealogy forum, to
challenge the idea that people have animal ancestors. I have asked
that anyone with credible evidence that THEY are personally descended
from a non-human, and received no rational response. IMO that's
because there can be none.
W F Sill
>There are (literally) tons of evidence that are, individually and in
>sum, credible to a huge number of skeptical and inquiring and bright
>scientific minds who have and currently still are spending most of
>every day puzzling and worrying and asking what if and poking into the
>evidence. What you are saying, is that there is no evidence which is
>credible *to you*; or, more likely, no evidence that you cannot somehow
>discount. That is a different matter.
If you and others will read what I wrote instead of leaping to
unjustified conclusions about what I MIGHT have meant, you will find
that I have merely presented what I believe to be a convincing
argument against the popular view. You are correct in stating that
much (not all) of the evidence is simply not credible to ME. More
accurately, I place a different interpretation on the evidence than is
currently fashionable. I don't deny the existence of "tons" of
evidence - what I deny emphatically is that ONLY the popular POV
explains it. The only definite thing that can be said for the
majority view is that a majority share it.
When all the hollering is over, NONE of us have a prayer of presenting
fully solid _proof_ that one theory is better than another.
Got that?
hrgr...@my-deja.com
>
> >There are (literally) tons of evidence that are, individually and in
> >sum, credible to a huge number of skeptical and inquiring and bright
> >scientific minds who have and currently still are spending most of
> >every day puzzling and worrying and asking what if and poking into
the
> >evidence. What you are saying, is that there is no evidence which is
> >credible *to you*; or, more likely, no evidence that you cannot
somehow
> >discount. That is a different matter.
>
> If you and others will read what I wrote instead of leaping to
> unjustified conclusions about what I MIGHT have meant, you will find
> that I have merely presented what I believe to be a convincing
> argument against the popular view. You are correct in stating that
> much (not all) of the evidence is simply not credible to ME. More
> accurately, I place a different interpretation on the evidence than is
> currently fashionable. I don't deny the existence of "tons" of
> evidence - what I deny emphatically is that ONLY the popular POV
> explains it.
<sarcasm>
Just as Newtonian mechanics (+ relativistic correctíons) is not the
only explanation for the orbits of planets, asteroids etc.; it is only
the popular POV. We can as well explain them by the action of invisible
djinns who are pushing the planets along ...
</sarcasm>
To paraphrase George Orwell: All interpretations are equal, but some
interpretations are more equal than the others.
The only definite thing that can be said for the
> majority view is that a majority share it.
>
> When all the hollering is over, NONE of us have a prayer of presenting
> fully solid _proof_ that one theory is better than another.
Proof, as should be known by now, is for mathematics and alcohol.
> Got that?
If you admit DNA analysis as proof for parentage, the many coinciding
nested hierarchies of genes and pseudogenes are credible evidence for a
common ancestor of humans and apes.
HRG.
> Will Sill KD3XR
> "There is a way that seems right to a man, but
> in the end it leads to death" Prov 14:12 NIV
>
>
Amanda Jones
> Don't write like an idiot and you'll get more respect. I did not say
> those things and you are being disingenuous (not to say lying) to
> imply that I did. Instead I responded, in a genealogy forum, to
> challenge the idea that people have animal ancestors. I have asked
> that anyone with credible evidence that THEY are personally descended
> from a non-human, and received no rational response. IMO that's
> because there can be none.
You are the one writing like an idiot, and you have no respect for me. How
can any one individual point to an ape and say "In the London area census
of several tens of thousands BC, Mr. Ape and family, occupation food
gatherer, is my ancestor"??
Please take your scientifically blinkered point of view back to some
shit-hole in the Deep South of America, and don't try our patience with
it.
Amanda
W F Sill
equally insulting things:
>Please take your scientifically blinkered point of view back to some
>shit-hole in the Deep South of America, and don't try our patience with
>it.
Thank you for so brilliantly demonstrating the proof of my earlier
comment about hostile abuse towards anyone not sharing the popular
views on this issue. I'm sorry you feel this is not a topic worthy of
your consideration, but I can recommend a good killfile (I use 'em
myself) or vigorous use of the <delete> key. Your choice.
W F Sill
>If you admit DNA analysis as proof for parentage, the many coinciding
>nested hierarchies of genes and pseudogenes are credible evidence for a
>common ancestor of humans and apes.
You speak as though you know how to interpret DNA, and I make no
pretense of expertise in that field. What you call "credible evidence"
I call merely "interesting but poorly understood information. " I do
not challenge the idea that you can convict a rapist with the
evidence, but I do emphatically challenge a conclusion that DNA
evidence can place an actual jackass in your family tree. (You may
interpret that as you please. Hehehe)
But one thing all must understand: we can't BOTH be right - and in my
opinion your theory has more holes than a Florida ballot, so I think
you're wrong. Am I allowed to say that?
hrgr...@my-deja.com
>
> >If you admit DNA analysis as proof for parentage, the many coinciding
> >nested hierarchies of genes and pseudogenes are credible evidence
for a
> >common ancestor of humans and apes.
>
> You speak as though you know how to interpret DNA, and I make no
> pretense of expertise in that field. What you call "credible evidence"
> I call merely "interesting but poorly understood information. " I do
> not challenge the idea that you can convict a rapist with the
> evidence, but I do emphatically challenge a conclusion that DNA
> evidence can place an actual jackass in your family tree. (You may
> interpret that as you please. Hehehe)
A similar argument has been dealt with convincingly in Huxley vs.
Wilberforce.
> But one thing all must understand: we can't BOTH be right - and in my
> opinion your theory has more holes than a Florida ballot, so I think
> you're wrong. Am I allowed to say that?
Of course you are. You are even allowed to give rational reasons for
your opinion.
HRG.
> Will Sill KD3XR ---- Curmudgeon in training
> I don't know all the answers - but you don't know
> all the questions either, right?
>
Dave Hinz
: >I gotta ask this.... have you ever *seen* a monkey? Watched a group of
: >chimps interact for an hour on Discovery or Animal Planet?
: Yup. Smarter than Al Gore, right?
Any of you folks planning to actually get on-topic here, or would
a mass-killfiling be in order? At least FTM "bitch sessions" are
vaguely related to the topic of this newsgroup.
I've said it before, take your little argument off to talk.origins.
Neither of you would last long there.
Dave Hinz
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Derek Stevenson
<dstev...@my-deja.com>:
>In article <f4hc2tgvfkohgrp3e...@4ax.com>,
> W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>> You just don't get it, do you? Well, I can't say as I blame you in
>> view of the widespread acceptance of the concept of accidental
>> creation of life and apes as human ancestors. Feel free to come
>> forward with credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that
>> you personally have a non-human ancestor. Names, dates and proof
>> that satisfies the so-called scientific method would surely be
>> welcomed as a HUGE breakthrough by the academic world. You would be
>> justly famous.
>
>This may come as a surprise to you, but the practice of issuing birth
>certificates postdates by a considerable margin the emergence of H.
>sapiens sapiens.
Perhaps he could provide "credible evidence" that he has a
*human* ancestor ca., say, 500AD? A birth certificate
wouldn't be necessary; *complete* family records would be
acceptable.
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
rokimo...@my-deja.com
This is pretty funny, if this statement is true you must be adopted.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Guertin
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:a7lc2ts7v0ievlq7e...@4ax.com...
> interpret evidence differently. That's called controversy. There are
> a number (however small) of "non-religious" scientists who are willing
> to admit that Divine Creation is a more plausible theory than the
> currently popular "big bang" ideas and the incalculably huge
> probabilities involved for accidental occurence of life.
Does this mean the probabilities involved in Creationism are greater? That
would require the probabilities that there is a Divinity to be calculated
first.
Have them handy?
Lesley Robertson
> Forgive me for not reposting lots of verbiage: The point was that
> those of us who believe Divine Creation as the only rational
> explanation for the origin & existance of mankind are frequently the
> subject of great hostility - which you have yourself demonstrated.
Mr Sill, if you interpret my questions as great hostility, there is no point
in trying to continue the discussion.
> I don't thoroughly
> understand DNA and bet you don't either
Wrong, although I don't think "thoroughly understand" is a term any
scientist would use - there's still too many questions.
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
<hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9063ga$cgo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Just as Newtonian mechanics (+ relativistic correctíons) is not the
> only explanation for the orbits of planets, asteroids etc.; it is only
> the popular POV. We can as well explain them by the action of invisible
> djinns who are pushing the planets along ...
>
I'm glad you explained that - I thought they were carried by turtles
swimming through space!
;)
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
"z" <gzuc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:905r95$4pi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> 1) It's not 'Divine Creation' that elicits the negative reaction,
> but 'Evolution is Wrong!'. Try posting 'I believe that evolution is the
> way God creates species' and see if you get the same reaction.
>
limiting their powers in the insistence that creationism is the only way.
After all, if you have two gardens, one of which had been created by
sticking unchanging plastic trees and roses into the ground, and the other
by someone capable of planting seeds and then watching their garden evolve
in the way they planned, I know which "gardener" I'd respect more!
Lesley Robertson
W F Sill
squeak to the fray (Les Robertson has used the oldest trick in the
book: "If you don't accept my POV I won'tt talk to you!") by answering
a tiny fragment of my unanswerable post:
> . . . . . . That's called controversy. There are
>> a number (however small) of "non-religious" scientists who are willing
>> to admit that Divine Creation is a more plausible theory than the
>> currently popular "big bang" ideas and the incalculably huge
>> probabilities involved for accidental occurence of life.
Dennis says:
>Does this mean the probabilities involved in Creationism are greater? That
>would require the probabilities that there is a Divinity to be calculated
>first.
>
>Have them handy?
No, it means I believe Divine Creation is more consistent with the
observable universe, and in particular with the known history of the
human race.
Unless you're a flaming idiot, you know full well that such things are
incalculable. What we have here is a few loudmouths stridently
demanding that ONLY their view of human origins is respectable, and
leaping all over those few of us who say we don't agree with their
theory. It is humanly impossible to KNOW with certainty how we came
to exist. Theories abound, and some are more congruent with the
available evidence than others. Honest observers interpret evidence
differently, and cease to be honest when they merely accept the
prevailing view as gospel "just because"'
But here in alt.genealogy, I trust no rational person seriously
believes he will find a jackass among his ancestors.
Will KD3XR
It ain't who votes that counts - it's who counts the votes.
J Stalin
Lesley Robertson
> Not long ago, "Dennis Guertin" <dgue...@guertin.com> wrote to add his
> squeak to the fray (Les Robertson has used the oldest trick in the
> book: "If you don't accept my POV I won'tt talk to you!") by answering
> a tiny fragment of my unanswerable post:
Wrong. I said that if you were going to take what I considered to be polite
questions as hostility, I saw no point in trying to discuss things. Nothing
about agreeing with me, or accepting my point of view. Nothing about how
answerable your post was.
Exact quote:
"Mr Sill, if you interpret my questions as great hostility, there is no
point
in trying to continue the discussion."
Your inability to read even such a simple sentence without misunderstanding
it confirms me in that opinion.
Also, if I wished to be referred to as "Les", I would sign myself in that
way.
Say what you like from now on, I won't be reading it. - that means that NOW
I won't talk to you, in case you're not sure.
Lesley Robertson
Marilyn Hughes
are way off track.
johnf
> believes he will find a jackass among his ancestors.
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:ntaf2tkrl7rohbr32...@4ax.com...
I am wondering what the real reason is behind W F Sill introducing this
theme into alt.genealogy in the first place.
Genealogy, to a TRUE Genealogist, is the collection of known, proven FACTS
regarding their ancestors. Therefore, hypotheses cannot be considered and
should not be discussed here.
J Ferguson
W F Sill
nobody in partricular:
>Do you not know the difference between genealogy and anthropology? You
>are way off track.
If you think these two areas of interest are unconnected, look under
YOUR wheels!
W F Sill
to my remark that:
>> But here in alt.genealogy, I trust no rational person seriously
>> believes he will find a jackass among his ancestors.
>I am wondering what the real reason is behind W F Sill introducing this
>theme into alt.genealogy in the first place.
He did not introduce the topic at all.
>Genealogy, to a TRUE Genealogist, is the collection of known, proven FACTS
>regarding their ancestors. Therefore, hypotheses cannot be considered and
>should not be discussed here.
You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how daft. As to your views
about what may or may not be discussed here, I have not yet received a
notice announcing that <joh...@bigpond.net.au> has been appointed net
nanny in charge.
My family history has entries for over 5000 persons, and VERY few of
them are fully defined by "known, proven FACTS". I expect your tree
has very few branches!
Heather Figueroa
>
> But here in alt.genealogy, I trust no rational person seriously
> believes he will find a jackass among his ancestors.
>
> It ain't who votes that counts - it's who counts the votes.
> J Stalin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
I guess you are the "First" to have a jackass among your ancestors, if
genetics play a role and they do. Or perhaps you are starting a new line of
Sills, descending from a Jackass. That line could be called the "Silly
Jackasses".
Oh, and by the way, "Les" is a woman and I am sure would prefer to be
addressed in that manner.
Oh well, off to do some research into my human ancestors.
Heather
W F Sill
presumably to more thoroughly prove the proposition that anyone who
believes in Divine Creation is subject to abuse & ridicule:
>I guess you are the "First" to have a jackass among your ancestors, if
>genetics play a role and they do. Or perhaps you are starting a new line of
>Sills, descending from a Jackass. That line could be called the "Silly
>Jackasses".
Hehehe!
Nice try, Heather. Next time, put yer brain in gear before puttering
with your keyboard. If I DID have a jackass in my family tree (we
are speaking here of the 4-legged kind, not the sort you seem to have
in mind) it would CERTAINLY be the first on record. In fact, though
you and soul-mates keep ducking the question, I sincerely believe
there is NO credible evidence that a beast ever begot a manchild - let
alone a much smarter (G) woman.
This lecture brought to you free by Will Sill KD3XR, who hopes you
are not offended by anything you read, inferred, assumed, presumed
or otherwise guessed I might have possibly meant as demeaning -
unless of course you are personally a humorless nitwit who WANTS
to be insulted. In which case be my guest.
Liz
> addressed in that manner.
Dear Heather
Poor little Willy.... now he'll be really scared.
Lesley is a woman. Lesley is a scientist. Lesley is a very intelligent
woman scientist. Who understands, to current levels of understanding,
about DNA. Yikes!
Whereas little Willy is worried about jackasses under the bed and hasn't
learned a single thing since Sunday School ....
No wonder he would like to believe 'Les' is just another man .... he's
quite comfy with men, isn't he?
Why don't you and me and Lesley play bid bad scary Mommies and leap out
on little Willy and say....
BOO!
See little Willy run..... <VBG>
Liz (Greenwich UK)
W F Sill
rock to piss & moan as follows:
>Poor little Willy.... now he'll be really scared.
Shaking in my very boots.
>Lesley is a woman. Lesley is a scientist. Lesley is a very intelligent
>woman scientist. Who understands, to current levels of understanding,
>about DNA. Yikes!
I'm impressed. I would be even MORE impressed if there was credible
evidence that DNA proves there is a jackass in Liz's family tree.
Insults do not make for a convincing argument - they are just
entertaining and not gender-specific.
>Whereas little Willy is worried about jackasses under the bed and hasn't
>learned a single thing since Sunday School ....
Sorry, your mind reading skills are a bit rusty, Liz.
>No wonder he would like to believe 'Les' is just another man .... he's
>quite comfy with men, isn't he?
No doubt Lesley has NEVER been called Les before? If she's a big
girl and not a pompous jerk she won't have a hissy fit about it.
>Why don't you and me and Lesley play bid bad scary Mommies and leap out
>on little Willy and say....
>
>BOO!
>
>See little Willy run..... <VBG>
>
>Liz (Greenwich UK)
I guess no additional proof is necessaary that when one challenges the
popular beliefs one is treated with great scorn by people who feel
threatened but who CANNOT produce credible evidence to support THEIR
theory. I don't have a problem with someone having an opposing view.
I have a problem believing that name-calling & abuse constitutes a
rational argument. This is alt.genealogy, not alt.flame.
I repeat for emphasis: you are entitle to your own interpretation of
the facts - you are not entitled to your own facts. One of which is
that NO credible evidence exists to demonstrate that a beast ever gave
birth to a human child - even one who acts like a hyena.
Drew Lawson
"johnf" <joh...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
[splitting out of the incomprehensible creationism thread]
>Genealogy, to a TRUE Genealogist, is the collection of known, proven FACTS
>regarding their ancestors. Therefore, hypotheses cannot be considered and
>should not be discussed here.
Wow. You must be just about completed if your genealogy work is
down to the point that hypotheses aren't considered.
I'm still working on tracking down some ancestors who are *thought*
to have come from some area, but may also have come from other
places. Apparently no one living knows where they came from. At
least no one living and talking about it. We have theories, and
some clues and a whole bunch of unexplaored possibilities.
That's what *my* genealogy work is like. But I'm not claiming to
be a True Genealogist, so that's okay.
--
|Drew Lawson | So many newsgroups |
|dr...@furrfu.com | So little time |
|http://www.furrfu.com/ | |
Amanda Jones
> I repeat for emphasis: you are entitle to your own interpretation of
> the facts - you are not entitled to your own facts. One of which is
> that NO credible evidence exists to demonstrate that a beast ever gave
> birth to a human child - even one who acts like a hyena.
No-one has claimed that a "beast" gives birth to a human child. I suggest
you don't mischaracterise evolution if you wish us to believe your
disparagement of it. Evolution is about the gradual changing of species,
so there is no one generation or individual who can be said to be the
"first human" given birth to by the "last ape"
Amanda
johnf
No, I haven't just about completed my tree, but I got sick of this unrelated
space & time-wasting thread. You summed up the whole thing fairly well in
one of your earlier posts -
"there are no wrong methods, except for inventing data."
I deliberately didn't mention that I actually run a few programs, the main
one containing 'proven facts' only, the others broken into family groups
containing probables, but yet to be proven.
My main reason for that post was to prove to myself that bigoted Trolls were
active here. I think I succeeded nicely. Now I can happily withdraw, become
an observer again and do some constructive gen work.
John
"Drew Lawson" <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote in message
news:909a5n$2hab$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
Dennis Guertin
> >Dennis says:
> >Does this mean the probabilities involved in Creationism are greater?
That
> >would require the probabilities that there is a Divinity to be calculated
> >first.
> observable universe, and in particular with the known history of the
> human race.
"Observable"? What evidence is observable that there exists a Divinity?
What is the source of your understanding of the known history of
the human race?
> ...Theories abound, and some are more congruent with the
> available evidence than others.
What is the available evidence that has you convinced there exists a
Divinity?
> Honest observers interpret evidence
> differently, and cease to be honest when they merely accept the
> prevailing view as gospel "just because"'
I couldn't agree more. Now, honestly interpret the evidence you
have that there is a Divinity that could account for a role in
Creation.
W F Sill
dead seriousness:
>>Genealogy, to a TRUE Genealogist, is the collection of known, proven FACTS
>>regarding their ancestors. Therefore, hypotheses cannot be considered and
>>should not be discussed here.
Then dr...@furrfu.com (Drew Lawson) wrote:
>Wow. You must be just about completed if your genealogy work is
>down to the point that hypotheses aren't considered.
>
>I'm still working on tracking down some ancestors who are *thought*
>to have come from some area, but may also have come from other
>places. Apparently no one living knows where they came from. At
>least no one living and talking about it. We have theories, and
>some clues and a whole bunch of unexplaored possibilities.
>
>That's what *my* genealogy work is like. But I'm not claiming to
>be a True Genealogist, so that's okay.
HA! Me, too. I thought it was a bit laughable myself that some
folks think you must have notarized records to be a true genealogist,
but you can be an "evolutionary anthropologist" on pure speculation -
and beat the hell out of anybody who wonders if you're right!!
W F Sill
>> I repeat for emphasis: you are entitled to your own interpretation of
>> the facts - you are not entitled to your own facts. One of which is
>> that NO credible evidence exists to demonstrate that a beast ever gave
>> birth to a human child - even one who acts like a hyena.
Then avj...@cix.co.uk (Amanda Jones) wrote:
>No-one has claimed that a "beast" gives birth to a human child.
Yes, I'm aware of that "fact" - and of the reason for it. The reason:
It is a complete impossibility.
> . . . . . . .I suggest
>you don't mischaracterise evolution if you wish us to believe your
>disparagement of it. Evolution is about the gradual changing of species,
>so there is no one generation or individual who can be said to be the
>"first human" given birth to by the "last ape"
_Species_ DO gradually change. That's true. Evolution can be
demonstrated in a relatively short time. What cannot be demonstrated
(and has never BEEN demonstrated credibly) is one species becoming
another - such as a fish becoming a horse - notwithstanding
generations of theoretical bafflegab in such pseudo-prestigeous
sources as Encyclopaedia Britannica!
That stuff is simply not remotely "genealogy" - nor does it rise
beyond the level of an unproven _theory_ of "anthropology".
Will KD3XR
"If the Democrats really wanted Gore to be President, they should have
voted for impeachment." Purported to be from a U of Mich Student
W F Sill
>> No, it means I believe Divine Creation is more consistent with the
>> observable universe, and in particular with the known history of the
>> human race.
Then "Dennis Guertin" <dgue...@guertin.com> wrote:
>"Observable"? What evidence is observable that there exists a Divinity?
<other equally inane loaded questions snipped>
Should you find yourself stumbling through the equatorial jungle in
Guyana and suddenly break into a clearing to find a freshly-waxed 2001
Pontiac Grand Am with it's engine running, would anyone be able to
convince you that it just grew there spontaneously? If so, you are in
need of more help that I can provide. No sane person would believe
that a such a complex Thing could come into existence without a
Creator - SOMEONE to design & arrange & construct & deliver. And of
course the car is so crude by comparison with the animal kingdom that
is cannot reproduce itself!
If you can look at the human body (for example) and persuade yourself
that it just happened accidentally, you have a FAR more vivid
imagination than is good for you.
Me, I am content to believe that there IS a God, and that He created
us as a separate species. You are at liberty to believe something
else if you like - but if you do, remember that you ALSO depend on
faith because the evidence does NOT prove a thing.
Dennis Guertin
<blah, blah, snipped>
Thank you. I see you've answered by avoiding all the
questions I asked.
You have no evidence of a Divinity yet you believe in
this myth and consider anyone who doesn't insane.
(Are fairies and dragons in your world, too?)
You believe this myth created the universe and that
that the existence of the universe is proof this myth
actually exists. Nice twisted logic, there.
Face it. You are such a narrowed-minded person and that
no amount of evidence, proven or scientificly theoretical,
can change your position one iota.
If Man made God in his own image, yours is pretty dumb all
over and a little ugly on the side.
<My apologies to REAL believers.>
W F Sill
<dgue...@guertin.com> spewed as follows:
>Thank you. I see you've answered by avoiding all the
>questions I asked.
No, I answered - with reasons why I believe as I do. You have
answered (see below) with circumlocution and abuse - which is what I
have come to expect from you. I find it illogical to believe that
complex organisms can come into existence without a designer or
Creator (upper or lower case doesn't matter a lot in the technical
sense, but I capitalize it when speaking of my personal Creator.) I
consider the entire universe to be "evidence", even though YOU say:
>You have no evidence of a Divinity yet you believe in
>this myth and consider anyone who doesn't insane.
Insanity is a relative thing. A person may believe himself to be
sane even when those around him do not share his POV. To me it is
illogical (insane or not) to believe in illogical things.
>(Are fairies and dragons in your world, too?)
>
>You believe this myth created the universe and that
>that the existence of the universe is proof this myth
>actually exists. Nice twisted logic, there.
You're entitled to believe anything you like. I believe the very
existence of a thing is sufficient evidence that it was created. . .
which in turn means there must be a Creator.
>Face it. You are such a narrowed-minded person and that
>no amount of evidence, proven or scientificly theoretical,
>can change your position one iota.
That statement comes from the same source as your belief in accidental
creation - RDS (rectal data storage)
>If Man made God in his own image, yours is pretty dumb all
>over and a little ugly on the side.
>
><My apologies to REAL believers.>
Why do I not believe your apology is sincere?
Back to the bottom line: This bozo and a couple of other harpies
(not a gender-specific application of the word!) seem intent on
proving the argument that anyone who opposes the popular POV (we're
descended from apes) is subject to abuse & ridicule. Fact is I can
say without any fear of _rational_ contradition that I BELIEVE that
all human beings are descended from Noah, and that he in turn was a
descendant of Adam, who was created by God. That is absolutely NOT
subject to debate.
And the reason it's not subject to debate is because it's what I
_believe_. I can't prove a thing - and neither can you.
Will Sill KD3XR
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but
in the end it leads to death" Prov 14:12 NIV
Heather Figueroa
> Not long ago, someone using the name "Dennis Guertin"
> <dgue...@guertin.com> spewed as follows:
>
> >Thank you. I see you've answered by avoiding all the
> >questions I asked.
Sock.......sock......now where did I put that? Yo Sill......you got one you
can use?? No one cares what you believe in......get it?
And why is it that the so-called 'religious' types are the arrogant,
know-it-alls?? Bombastic, rude, sarcastic, in-your-face, wearing
blinders........just a few words that come to mind. <g> And we are so nice
and polite.....well, most of the time.
One of the harpies......ROFL
W F Sill
>Sock.......sock......now where did I put that? Yo Sill......you got one you
>can use?? No one cares what you believe in......get it?
>
>And why is it that the so-called 'religious' types are the arrogant,
>know-it-alls?? Bombastic, rude, sarcastic, in-your-face, wearing
>blinders........just a few words that come to mind. <g> And we are so nice
>and polite.....well, most of the time.
>
>One of the harpies......ROFL
Glad to see you have a sensa humah. Though I am occasionally less
than kind myself, if you can read what you've written on these issues
without being a little embarrassed, then you certain have earned the
harpie label, having thoroughly earned the accusations you heap on me
and anytone else with the temerity to confront balderdaash!
Fact is a LOT of people care what I believe - one facet of which is
that speculation about non-human ancestors is totally out of place in
a genealogy forum. Not to mention unjustified by anything faintly
approaching objective reality.
Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If you sat
down to discuss someone's family tree and that person proceeded to
show you where they had seriously decided that GGGGGGgrandma was a
Chimpanzee, would you accept their research as having value?
Roger Head
This whole discussion reminds me of a joke that I saw many years ago in a
mens magazine. Two men were standing under a burning torch in a jungle
clearing. One was holding in his hand a skull with a sloping forehead and a
protruding jaw. The other man was pointing to a tent with a sign over it
that read "Camp Director". In the tent was a man who looked just like the
skull that the other man was holding. The one man was saying "You tell him
where you found it".
--
Roger Allen Head
lord...@earthlink.net
"Dennis Guertin" <dgue...@guertin.com> wrote in message
news:t2i6j2i...@corp.supernews.com...> news:20uh2t81jn79phe5e...@4ax.com...
>
> <blah, blah, snipped>
Richard A. Pence
> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If you
> sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that person
> proceeded to show you where they had seriously decided that
> GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would you accept their
> research as having value?
Will Sill KD3XR
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but
in the end it leads to death" Prov 14:12 NIV
It seems to be a favorite of yours to continually put this issue
into terms of animals giving birth to humans. I can't recall
anyone in this impossibly long thread suggesting this (other than
you misstating what others have written).
You are also fond of suggesting that others have jackasses or
hyenas in their family trees because you think their actions
reflect the attributes of those animals.
In a recent message you said there can be no debate about your
belief that you descend from Noah and that he, in turn, descends
from Adam and Eve.
But, speaking of jackasses, I wonder if you have figured out how
this Biblical lady fits into your family tree:
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those
of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Ezekiel
23:20 (NIV)
You are entitled to your views, Will. But all of us wish you would
stop mischaracterizing those of others - and then ridiculing them
for what they didn't say at all.
Further, if you are going to debate this issue rationally (and
endlessly), it would be nice if you weren't the sole judge of what
is "credible evidence" (you have so stated).
Regards,
Richard
W F Sill
where ever he presides to rant about my question that follows:
>> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If you
>> sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that person
>> proceeded to show you where they had seriously decided that
>> GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would you accept their
>> research as having value?
Says he:
>It seems to be a favorite of yours to continually put this issue
>into terms of animals giving birth to humans. I can't recall
>anyone in this impossibly long thread suggesting this (other than
>you misstating what others have written).
As a master at misstating what others have written, Richard, you
certainly have the credentials to make that complaint. But you are
being (as we say when trying to call someone a liar using big words)
disingenuous. I put the issue in that context to clarify my belief
that, ultimately, it can be viewed in no other light. The popular
notion is that this presumed descent from apes happened gradually over
eons - yet if you believe that, you must also believe that at SOME
point in time a beast MUST have given birth to a human - else there is
no actual difference (beast vs human). I have NOT claimed that any of
the "evolution" proponents descended from a jackass - in fact the
opposite it true. I have claimed NO human has an animal ancestor.
>You are also fond of suggesting that others have jackasses or
>hyenas in their family trees because you think their actions
>reflect the attributes of those animals.
You are being blatantly dishonest to represent my views in that
manner. . . and I believe you know it.
>In a recent message you said there can be no debate about your
>belief that you descend from Noah and that he, in turn, descends
>from Adam and Eve.
No, you misrepresent me again. I said that my BELIEF is not
debatable. You are at liberty to debate the _issue_ until the cows
come home - it's my beliefs that are not subject to adjustment to fit
the popular fictions.
>But, speaking of jackasses, I wonder if you have figured out how
>this Biblical lady fits into your family tree:
>
>"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those
>of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Ezekiel
>23:20 (NIV)
I certainly have figured it out -- it stands as biblical documentation
that sexual perversions such as bestiality are not a modern invention.
There is no record of offspring from such activities.
>You are entitled to your views, Will. But all of us wish you would
>stop mischaracterizing those of others - and then ridiculing them
>for what they didn't say at all.
Your arrogance in claiming to speak for "all of us" is exceeded only
by your hypocrisy in accusing me of misrepresenting others' views even
as you are doing it yourself in nearly every paragraph. If I have
actually misrepresented anyone's POV, it was unintentional... yet the
evidence suggests you do so deliberately.
>Further, if you are going to debate this issue rationally (and
>endlessly), it would be nice if you weren't the sole judge of what
>is "credible evidence" (you have so stated).
I am trying to be polite, but that is either evidence of poor reading
comprehension or a damned lie. I am that sole judge of what is
credible to ME, Richard. You get to decide what YOU believe.
The controversial idea that's been presented here, and valiantly
defended by a noisy few, is that us pore humans have animal ancestors.
That, in my carefully considered opinion, is complete poppycock
unworthy of rational discussion in ANY arena. It is also, in my
opinion, even more outrageously irrational in a forum devoted to
genealogy - a field of inquiry which has thus far failed to reveal
even the SLIGHTEST HINT of hard evidence that (as I am fond of
reminding you) your GGGGGGgranny was a hyena.
Richard, I am fully aware that my views are unpopular, and there are
few problems in life that concern me less. But I confess
astonishment that a published author with your apparent understanding
of the English language and desire to correctly attribute genealogical
data would stoop to attacking MY views in this dishonest manner.
Back to square one, I asked:
>> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If you
>> sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that person
>> proceeded to show you where they had seriously decided that
>> GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would you accept their
>> research as having value?
Just answer the question or continue to rant about my POV - your
choice.
Liz
> are not offended by anything you read, inferred, assumed, presumed
> or otherwise guessed I might have possibly meant as demeaning -
> unless of course you are personally a humorless nitwit who WANTS
> to be insulted. In which case be my guest.
Oh, Mrs Sill, dear....
Please please put silly little Willy to beddy-bye now. He's over-tired
and acting up and I really do think the grown-ups have been indulging
him for far too long..... It can't be good for him.
Nighty night, little Willy, sleep tight, don't let the Chimpanzees bite.
Diddums. They're so sweet when they're asleep ..... aaaaaaah.
Liz (Greenwich UK)
johnf
Sitting in front of your PC all day long, with a Bible in one hand and a
Dictionary in the other, waiting for another thread to appear (average
response time 41 minutes at last count) and another person to denigrate.
How on earth do you manage to use your keyboard?
Do you realise that you account for 44.5% of all threads? That in itself
brings to mind that very hackneyed biblical quote "the Devil finds work for
idle hands"
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:jv1l2tg34l34p1hnn...@4ax.com...
W F Sill
wrttes:
>You are an incredibly talented person, W F Sill.
>Sitting in front of your PC all day long, with a Bible in one hand and a
>Dictionary in the other, waiting for another thread to appear (average
>response time 41 minutes at last count) and another person to denigrate.
>How on earth do you manage to use your keyboard?
>
>Do you realise that you account for 44.5% of all threads? That in itself
>brings to mind that very hackneyed biblical quote "the Devil finds work for
>idle hands"
Nice shot. Have you tried the Shakespeare Insult Kit? I will post it
on request... it's a handy tool for people like yourself who would
rather take potshots than think or answer a simple question - to wit:
>> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If you
>> sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that person
>> proceeded to show you where they had seriously decided that
>> GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would you accept their
>> research as having value?
Will KD3XR
johnf
No, she has more the look of a cuddly koala.
(getting better, only 26 mins. this time - what time is it over there, by
the way?)
Rational questions merit rational answers.
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:l3ll2tcieqdnttmdb...@4ax.com...
> Still another critic heard from. Now "johnf" <joh...@bigpond.net.au>
> wrttes:
>
> >You are an incredibly talented person, W F Sill.
> >Sitting in front of your PC all day long, with a Bible in one hand and a
> >Dictionary in the other, waiting for another thread to appear (average
> >response time 41 minutes at last count) and another person to denigrate.
> >How on earth do you manage to use your keyboard?
> >
> >Do you realise that you account for 44.5% of all threads? That in itself
> >brings to mind that very hackneyed biblical quote "the Devil finds work
for
> >idle hands"
>
> Nice shot. Have you tried the Shakespeare Insult Kit? I will post it
> on request... it's a handy tool for people like yourself who would
> rather take potshots than think or answer a simple question - to wit:
>
> >> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If you
> >> sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that person
> >> proceeded to show you where they had seriously decided that
> >> GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would you accept their
> >> research as having value?
>
Robert Heiling
> "<snip>
> > >However I am putting you in the filter to not
> > >receive your messages anymore as I find "Your Type Of Christianity
> > >Offensive".
That was apparently an empty bluff.
> If you wish to debate evolution I assume there are news groups out there
> where you can do it to your hearts content. But PLEASE let this thread die
> a natural death, in a forum where it does not belong.
>
and you earlier posted the above. Have YOU been helping to END the thread or
have you been pouring gasoline on the fire?
> W F Sill
> The bible that I own <snip>
> I suggest that you take your rant about evolution to the proper forum,
> and shut up in this one.
Are you here with a solution or are you part of the problem?
> Roger Allen Head
> lord...@earthlink.net
Bob
Roger Head
As a born again Christian and a believer in Divine Creation the answer
to your question is "NO". However I am putting you in the filter to not
receive your messages anymore as I find "Your Type Of Christianity
tree, I would just ignore what they had to say from then on. Not rant and
rave at them and everyone else in a forum that is designed to help people
find their ancestors, not discuss religion.
If you wish to debate evolution I assume there are news groups out there
where you can do it to your hearts content. But PLEASE let this thread die
a natural death, in a forum where it does not belong.
Roger Allen Head
lord...@earthlink.net
> Still another critic heard from. Now "johnf" <joh...@bigpond.net.au>
> wrttes:
>
> >Sitting in front of your PC all day long, with a Bible in one hand and a
> >Dictionary in the other, waiting for another thread to appear (average
> >response time 41 minutes at last count) and another person to denigrate.
> >How on earth do you manage to use your keyboard?
> >
> >Do you realise that you account for 44.5% of all threads? That in itself
> >brings to mind that very hackneyed biblical quote "the Devil finds work
for
> >idle hands"
>
> on request... it's a handy tool for people like yourself who would
> rather take potshots than think or answer a simple question - to wit:
>
> >> sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that person
> >> proceeded to show you where they had seriously decided that
> >> GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would you accept their
> >> research as having value?
>
W F Sill
Several times I posted this question;
>> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If you
>> sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that person
>> proceeded to show you where they had seriously decided that
>> GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would you accept their
>> research as having value?
Now comes "Roger Head" <Lord...@earthlink.net> with an actual answer:
> As a born again Christian and a believer in Divine Creation the answer
> to your question is "NO".
Thank you. Neither would I. Neither would any competent
genealogiist, Christian or not. IMO.
But then you proceeded with the following rant. Forgive me if I
translate it into plain English.
>However I am putting you in the filter to not
>receive your messages anymore as I find "Your Type Of Christianity
>Offensive".
Translation: You have decided what "kind" of Christian I am, and on
that basis will cease reading my stuff.
> . . . . If a person insisted that they had a Chimp in their family
>tree, I would just ignore what they had to say from then on.
Translation: You agree with my basic thesis that people who believe
they have a chimp in their family are not credible genealogists.
> . . . . Not rant and
>rave at them and everyone else in a forum that is designed to help people
>find their ancestors, not discuss religion.
Translation: You don't think anybody should object when somebody
makes the claim - in a genealogy NG - that they are descended from
animals.
> If you wish to debate evolution I assume there are news groups out there
>where you can do it to your hearts content. But PLEASE let this thread die
>a natural death, in a forum where it does not belong.
Translation: You make me uncomfortable and I wish you would go away.
I do not with to debate evolution. I don't consider it debatable.
It's a demonstrated fact that living things change some of their
characteristics over many generations. But I expect to challenge
those who state - in a genealogy forum - that we are descended from
animals. I'm sorry (but not very) you're offended.
In view of the hostility shown by a few, it is not too hard to see why
those who agree with me fear stating so in this forum and send private
email instead!
johnf
no answer that, so I will conveniently "rephrase" it.
Give it away folks. he's nasty, off the planet and not worth wasting time
on. Private email yet? Why mention that if it's private.
> "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to
death" Prov 14:12 NIV
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:ghtl2t0p7fjnosv0i...@4ax.com...
Roger Head
>
> Several times I posted this question;
>
> >> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If you
> >> sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that person
> >> proceeded to show you where they had seriously decided that
> >> GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would you accept their
> >> research as having value?
>
> Now comes "Roger Head" <Lord...@earthlink.net> with an actual answer:
>
> > As a born again Christian and a believer in Divine Creation the answer
> > to your question is "NO".
>
> Thank you. Neither would I. Neither would any competent
> genealogiist, Christian or not. IMO.
>
> But then you proceeded with the following rant. Forgive me if I
> translate it into plain English.
>
> >However I am putting you in the filter to not
> >receive your messages anymore as I find "Your Type Of Christianity
> >Offensive".
>
> Translation: You have decided what "kind" of Christian I am, and on
> that basis will cease reading my stuff.
>
The bible that I own and read has a passage that says "By their fruits
you shall know them". I have no idea what you believe, but by the fruit of
what you write I know that if I was as unhappy as you seem to be, I would
not read this forum as it seems to upset you so much whenever someone says
something that you disagree with.
If your being unhappy is not the reason that you write the way that you
do. Then I am really sorry for you. There is counseling for people who
enjoy inflicting pain on other people. And you are very good at doing that,
and in most circles that would make you a bully. We all know that a bully
is no more than a coward who is afraid of what other people might think or
do, so they attack every time they feel threatened.
I suggest that you take your rant about evolution to the proper forum,
and shut up in this one.
Roger Allen Head
lord...@earthlink.net
W F Sill
writing:
>> >. . . .I am putting you in the filter to not receive your messages
>> > anymore as I find "Your Type Of Christianity Offensive".
I appreciate the fact that you at leaast answered the question
intelligently, but just to make sure you understand how the system
works, I commend to you these words written by yuour alter ego, Roger
Allen Head:
> The bible that I own and read has a passage that says "By their fruits
>you shall know them". I have no idea what you believe, but by the fruit of
>what you write I know that if I was as unhappy as you seem to be, I would
>not read this forum as it seems to upset you so much whenever someone says
>something that you disagree with.
However, this same person wrote (I snipped the gratuitous insults
about other people's imagined unjhappiness):
> I suggest that you take your rant about evolution to the proper forum,
>and shut up in this one.
I do not commend these words to you or anyone. Instead, when you find
words here that you feel are misleading, confront them if you like.
If these words cause you distress, either delete them the moment they
appear on your screen or - if you hate the author - use the filter
like you promised.
As I feel led to do so, I expect to continue to challenge daft ideas.
If someone claims they are a GGgranddaughter of Amanda Alice Bidlack
and that appears to be erroneous, I may say so. And if someone
claims they have a rhinocerus for a cousin, I will challenge that idea
as well.
s...@nbnet.nb.ca
According to science, in order for a theory to stand, ALL observed
evidence must support the theory. If any single piece of evidence
exists that contradicts the theory, then the theory must be labelled
as untrue. The Theory of Evolution has more holes than Swiss cheese.
According to science, all systems left to themselves, will become more
chaotic as time passes. Primordial goo has no more chance of becoming
a human over billions of years, than a pile of scrap metal, sitting in
a field, becoming a 747 airliner.
Many people confuse the FACT of diversification of species with the
THEORY of evolution. Many of the top scientific minds that ever lived
believe in God. Even Chuck Darwin said, "Perhaps I was wrong!"
Ninety-five percent of humanity believe in a supreme being. At the
very least please consider our view and don't dismiss us all as
morons.
I like to say that those who believe in evolution are people of great
faith! <grin> Personally, I find it far less of a stretch to believe
in God and his son who can raise the dead. Raising the dead should be
childs play compared to creating me from some pond goo... oui?
<smile>
Evolutionists... I pray you're wrong! I also pray you're not dead
wrong!
If you'd like to discuss this further, please email me. Don't waste
anymore alt.genealogy bandwidth.
Regards.
W F Sill
supporting view, wrote in part:
> . . . . . . Primordial goo has no more chance of becoming
>a human over billions of years, than a pile of scrap metal, sitting in
>a field, becoming a 747 airliner.
Absolutely.
It has been argued that human origins are not a proper topic for
alt.genealogy. But while it makes a few noisy people extremely
uncomfortable when it (frequently) comes up, it's logical that
thinking people would be uneasy with the Big Bang theory, and
associated ideas about life itself magically occuring by accident, and
humans somehow being born to animals.
Several people have appeared to tremble in anger when I ask which of
their gggggggrandparents was a jackass - but this is a perfectly valid
question to throw when someone claims (as several have here) that they
have cousins/ancestors who are animals.
In genealogy, we learn what we can about our forbears. It is
interesting for various reasons, but IMO a person who purports to have
genealogical records and who also claims animal relatives is utterly
without credibility -- and deserves to be challenged.
Surely if someone claimed he was descended from Mother Theresa but
had nothing but theories and guesswork to go on, he'd be challenged!
Will Sill KD3XR
Derek Stevenson
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote:
> Not long ago, Derek Stevenson <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote to
> challenge (Egad, where do these skeptics come from?) my statement
> that:
>
> >> You just don't get it, do you? Well, I can't say as I blame you
> >> in view of the widespread acceptance of the concept of accidental
> >> creation of life and apes as human ancestors. Feel free to come
> >> forward with credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK)
> >> that you personally have a non-human ancestor. Names, dates and
> >> proof that satisfies the so-called scientific method would surely
> >> be welcomed as a HUGE breakthrough by the academic world. You
> >> would be justly famous.
>
> Says Derek:
>
> >This may come as a surprise to you, but the practice of issuing birth
> >certificates postdates by a considerable margin the emergence of H.
> >sapiens sapiens.
>
> What is the relevance of this argument? If you're saying there's no
> record, I couldn't agree more! I further suggest there is _no_
> credible evidence (thus far totally lacking AFAIK) that, as I wrote,
> you personally have a non-human ancestor.
>
> Also, when I wrote "Names, dates and proof that satisfies the
> so-called scientific method. . . " I did not mention birth
> certificates. Other truly credible proofs would be a sensation.
Interesting. I add talk.origins to the Newsgroups: line, and Will snips
it back out again.
You wouldn't be afraid to discuss this subject in a newsgroup where
it's actually on-topic and where many of the posters would actually
know something about it (no offense to a.g. intended), would you?
Nah, that *can't* be the reaon!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard A. Pence
> >> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If
> >> you sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that
> >> person proceeded to show you where they had seriously
> >> decided that GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would
> >> you accept their research as having value?
> Just answer the question or continue to rant about my POV -
> your choice.
I am going to continue to ignore what is probably the dumbest
question i ever saw propounded in this newsgroup.
Here's my choice, Will:
I am going to tell you what I think of the way you have conducted
youreself. This time, I am not going to let you get away with the
kind of intellectual dishonesty you continue to exhibit.
It is time for you to quit telling me (and others) what I said and
how I said it.
You see, Will, I have never ranted about your "POV" on this topic.
As a matter of fact, I have never even mentioned your POV at all.
I repeat: I have never, not once, not at all, in no instance, at
no time ever, ever, ever even so much as mention your preciaous
"POV."
What I did do is comment on your deplorable methods of debate.
It was only a few months ago that you went ballistic because
someone inquired as to whether this piece of software or that
could handle same sex marriages.
I responded to something SOMEONE ELSE said and you apparently
took this comment as an attack on you and your (again) precious
"POV." On two separate occasions you then attacked me for
arguments I never made. You containue to launch attacks on me for
what I never said or even intimated.
When I pointed out then that I had not commented one way or
another on your "POV," your response was to call me liar. Using
that very word.
I ignored it then. This time, however, I will make myself clear,
since you claim you have to "translate" when I use more polite
terms:
You, sir, are the liar.
You lied then and you lied above when you said I ranted about your
"POV."
The plain fact is that I didn't even mention your "POV."
That's not all. You have continuously lied throughout this whole
debate. You lie when you try to say someone said what they did not
say (your "translations" are getting a bit tranparent, BTW) and
you lie when you deny your words mean what they clearly stated.
You have lied so much that you you have even grown to believe you
are somehow clever when you twist another's words into a point you
can handle.
> This lecture brought to you free by Will Sill KD3XR, who hopes
> you are not offended by anything you read, inferred, assumed,
> presumed or otherwise guessed I might have possibly meant
> as demeaning - unless of course you are personally a
> humorless nitwit who WANTS to be insulted. In which case be
> my guest.
If it is all the same, I would like to have my lectures come from
persons who do not habitually lie, who don't routinely and
idiotically call others idiots and whose own actions have not made
him a laughable nitwit.
That's what you have become, you know. A laughable idiotic nitwit.
It's no wonder the overseas participants (in particular) here are
laughing out loud.
My apologies to the other participants in this group. They
deserve better than what you have given them and this response,
which wouldn't have been necessary if you weren't so intent upon
attacking me that you had to make up something to do it.
Regards,
Richard
W F Sill
>Interesting. I add talk.origins to the Newsgroups: line, and Will snips
>it back out again.
>
>You wouldn't be afraid to discuss this subject in a newsgroup where
>it's actually on-topic and where many of the posters would actually
>know something about it (no offense to a.g. intended), would you?
>
>Nah, that *can't* be the reaon!
The reason I don't post to any "origins" NG's is that I have an
interest in genealogy, and do _not_ have an interest in debating with
people who seem to believe in fairy tales about having an animal for
an ancestor. All my ancestors are humans.
W F Sill
>> >> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If
>> >> you sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that
>> >> person proceeded to show you where they had seriously
>> >> decided that GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would
>> >> you accept their research as having value?
>
>> Just answer the question or continue to rant about my POV -
>> your choice.
"Richard A. Pence" then invested a LOT of keystrokes to say:
>I am going to continue to ignore what is probably the dumbest
>question i ever saw propounded in this newsgroup.
and then added:
>I am going to tell you what I think of the way you have conducted
>youreself.
<snipped a huge gratuitous essay unworthy of discussion>
Sorry, Richard, you have mistaken me for someone who is interested in
your character analysis.
One other thing: I have been called a liar before, but usually by
someone who has what they believe is evidence. Sit down, take a few
deep breaths and then provide an example of where I've lied. I'll
consider it. If I intentionally deceived someone I will be happy to
apologize. If I simply made a mistake I'll apologize. But I do not
intend to be bullied by the likes of Richard Pence, who has several
times misstated or at least misunderstood what I write.
Helen Leggatt
piece of info?
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:9von2tg1o9664035l...@4ax.com...
johnf
Hopefully you aren't a typical example
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:9von2tg1o9664035l...@4ax.com...
> but IMO a person who purports to have > genealogical records and who also
Liz
> someone who has what they believe is evidence. Sit down, take a few
> deep breaths and then provide an example of where I've lied. I'll
> consider it. If I intentionally deceived someone I will be happy to
> apologize. If I simply made a mistake I'll apologize. But I do not
> intend to be bullied by the likes of Richard Pence, who has several
> times misstated or at least misunderstood what I write.
Liar! Liar! pants on fire!
Richard was absolutely correct you silly little wimp! And any bullying
comes from you.
You show me where anyone in this ridiculous mess ever said that an
animal gave birth to a human. Over and over you have told people that
that is what they said, that is what they meant, because you needed that
to be the argument you could refute. But never ever not once was that
argument put.
The evidence against you is there. 99% of the time you are arguing
against your own fantasies .... and, stupid as you are, you know this is
so.....
That you should be the end product of aeons of evolution is almost
enough to make one despair..... do go away you total waste of space.
Liz (Greenwich UK)
W F Sill
insults snipped):
>You show me where anyone in this ridiculous mess ever said that an
>animal gave birth to a human.
Show me where I said they did! I have several times made it clear
that alsthough nobody is willing to make THAT claim, they seem willing
to claim we are descended from animals. Simply logic says that IF that
ever happened, some animal somewhere MUST have given birth to a human.
Why does that make you angry?
W F Sill
>So where do you propose humans came from then? Or did I miss this vital
>piece of info?
Sorry, I thought you knew that quite a few of us believe God created
us a few thousand years back. The same God created animals in a
rather remarkable variety. The first human we have a record of has a
familiar name you might have heard about: Adam.
Dennis Guertin
>
> But despite continuous attempts to work this as an "origin of life"
> issue, this is alt.genealogy, where only human ancestors are relevant
> and real.
Ooops! You forgot about those angels! Some one out there must have them
in their lineage, or did they all die out?
Please pontificate.
Chuck Wolfram
A near perfect answer. Thank you.
I forget how this tread started. But I'm not much interested in that.
May I suggest that the next time any one of us sees a post by W. F. Sill
on anything remotely (or not so remotely) concerned with evolution, chimps,
etc. that we simply do NOT answer? We need not killfile---simply, en masse,
refuse to post any response to any such post by Mr. Sill. If he should post
on something totally unrelated to the off-topic subjects, something like
'Who were the parents of the Archduke Ferdinand?' [sorry, I can't think of
anything more on-topic, and unknown, at this moment, since we do know who
his parents were<g>] then feel free to answer it.
Genealogically Yours,
Chuck Wolfram
Researching HALTEMAN, STAUFFER,
WOLFRAM,THOMSEN, SCHULTZ,
LANDIS, KOLB, BAUER, CLEMENS
Roger Head <Lord...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GFBW5.32299$II2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Richard A. Pence
> One other thing: I have been called a liar before, but usually
by
> someone who has what they believe is evidence. Sit down,
> take a few deep breaths and then provide an example of where
> I've lied. I'll consider it. If I intentionally deceived
someone I
> will be happy to apologize. If I simply made a mistake I'll
> apologize.
Happy to accomodate.
I provided you the proof in my previous message, but since you are
slow today, I will spell it out again.
In your previous message to me, you stated: "Just answer the
question or continue to rant about my POV - your choice."
In that sentence you stated that I ranted about your POV.
The fact is I have never even mentioned your point of view on the
topic under discussion, namely creationism vs. evolution.
To make it easier for you to check. I have posted but one message
in any of the threads relating to the topic - the one to which you
replied with the above statement.
I will expect your public apology forthwith. Or are you going to
continue to lie about this matter? I think I know the answer.
Regards,
Richard
Helen Leggatt
maybe try evolution?
check out how even today species are evolving...
then come back with a decent debate
humans didn't appear overnight, no one says they did
however, you seem to think they did - so now where's your "simple logic" in
that?
Helen
Perthshire, Scotland
W F Sill <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:099o2t4uu666cqh1a...@4ax.com...
> Not long ago, Liz <pan...@dircon.co.uk> wrote (the usualk gratuitous
> insults snipped):
>
> >You show me where anyone in this ridiculous mess ever said that an
> >animal gave birth to a human.
>
> Show me where I said they did! I have several times made it clear
> that alsthough nobody is willing to make THAT claim, they seem willing
> to claim we are descended from animals. Simply logic says that IF that
> ever happened, some animal somewhere MUST have given birth to a human.
> Why does that make you angry?
>
Barb Wise
--
Barb
Genealogy Links: http://www.geocities.com/youngbarb/genealogy.htm
Orange Cty, IN, USA, Marriage Index:
http://www.geocities.com/Barb_Wise_1/index.htm
"Richard A. Pence" <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:90h4du$gun$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> "W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:jv1l2tg34l34p1hnn...@4ax.com...
> > >> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If
> > >> you sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that
> > >> person proceeded to show you where they had seriously
> > >> decided that GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would
> > >> you accept their research as having value?
>
> > Just answer the question or continue to rant about my POV -
> > your choice.
>
> I am going to continue to ignore what is probably the dumbest
> question i ever saw propounded in this newsgroup.
>
> Here's my choice, Will:
>
> I am going to tell you what I think of the way you have conducted
> You lied then and you lied above when you said I ranted about your
> "POV."
>
Barb Wise
choose to treat my opinion of you, shared by many here, the way I treat my
opinion of God. I just BELIEVE. Your posts are all the proof *I* need.
--
Barb
Genealogy Links: http://www.geocities.com/youngbarb/genealogy.htm
Orange Cty, IN, USA, Marriage Index:
http://www.geocities.com/Barb_Wise_1/index.htm
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:u36o2tkqqhden3d3u...@4ax.com...
> Not long ago, I wrote:
>
> >> >> Let me put it this way (not expecting a rational answer): If
> >> >> you sat down to discuss someone's family tree and that
> >> >> person proceeded to show you where they had seriously
> >> >> decided that GGGGGGgrandma was a Chimpanzee, would
> >> >> you accept their research as having value?
> >
> >> Just answer the question or continue to rant about my POV -
> >> your choice.
>
> "Richard A. Pence" then invested a LOT of keystrokes to say:
>
> >I am going to continue to ignore what is probably the dumbest
> >question i ever saw propounded in this newsgroup.
>
> and then added:
>
> >I am going to tell you what I think of the way you have conducted
> >youreself.
>
> <snipped a huge gratuitous essay unworthy of discussion>
>
> Sorry, Richard, you have mistaken me for someone who is interested in
> your character analysis.
>
> One other thing: I have been called a liar before, but usually by
> someone who has what they believe is evidence. Sit down, take a few
> deep breaths and then provide an example of where I've lied. I'll
> consider it. If I intentionally deceived someone I will be happy to
> apologize. If I simply made a mistake I'll apologize. But I do not
> intend to be bullied by the likes of Richard Pence, who has several
> times misstated or at least misunderstood what I write.
>
W F Sill
>go look up how animals have adapted to their environments...
>maybe try evolution?
>check out how even today species are evolving...
>then come back with a decent debate
>
>humans didn't appear overnight, no one says they did
>however, you seem to think they did - so now where's your "simple logic" in
>that?
>
>Helen
Go look up what's been posted on this thread if you can stand the
acidic remarks of skeptics .. . but I happen to believe humans DID
appear "overnight". I believe they were created, male & female, by
the same God who created the animals as DIFFERENT species.
You are at liberty to believe as you wish, but you make yourself look
silly when you attack the Creation POV using nothing but your faith in
an unproven theory. Scientists have been trying for years to arrive
at some scenario where life - even the most primitive form - can
develop spontaneously. If it has happened at all, it has been kept
secret.
But despite continuous attempts to work this as an "origin of life"
issue, this is alt.genealogy, where only human ancestors are relevant
and real.
Bluebeard
Don't feed the trolls.
Bluebeard.
Helen Leggatt
Bluebeard <blue...@highseas.mil> wrote in message
news:3A2C5C69...@highseas.mil...
Chuck Wolfram
>
> Sorry, Richard, you have mistaken me for someone who is interested in
> your character analysis.
>
> One other thing: I have been called a liar before, but usually by
> someone who has what they believe is evidence. Sit down, take a few
> deep breaths and then provide an example of where I've lied. I'll
> consider it. If I intentionally deceived someone I will be happy to
> apologize. If I simply made a mistake I'll apologize. But I do not
> intend to be bullied by the likes of Richard Pence, who has several
> times misstated or at least misunderstood what I write.
>
simple truth about it, Mr. Sill, is that you ARE a liar, you must know it
because you do it soooo often and soooo obviously. You know full well that
Mr. Pence, among others, wrote the unvarnished truth concerning what he
wrote. You denied that he did so. It makes you a liar. All you have to do
is re-read what has been posted. You will see the truth of these
statements--and the falsity of what you wrote. If you don't see it, then
you are deluding yourself, or you can't follow elementary logic.
Chuck
Roger Head
news:t2oqlvf...@corp.supernews.com...> news:jsjo2tskch6ul4t0i...@4ax.com...
> >
> > But despite continuous attempts to work this as an "origin of life"
> > issue, this is alt.genealogy, where only human ancestors are relevant
> > and real.
>
> in their lineage, or did they all die out?
>
> Please pontificate.
>
hiding.
Roger Allen Head
lord...@earthlink.net
Liz
>
> Not long ago, Liz <pan...@dircon.co.uk> wrote (the usualk gratuitous
> insults snipped):
>
> >You show me where anyone in this ridiculous mess ever said that an
> >animal gave birth to a human.
>
> Show me where I said they did! I have several times made it clear
> that alsthough nobody is willing to make THAT claim, they seem willing
> to claim we are descended from animals. Simply logic says that IF that
> ever happened, some animal somewhere MUST have given birth to a human.
> Why does that make you angry?
Fault in logic.
It is not 'animals' in a general sense, BTW, but specifically the great
apes (no jackasses but you).
Imagine, if you will Will, that very very slowly over many many
generations certain of these 'animals' acquired traits which we might
characterise as 'human'. Until they reached the point where they were
more related to what we now call 'human' than their ape cousins who
remained what we now call'animal'. Miniscule changes over vast periods
of time. That is the key which you seem determined not to confront or
understand. No-one but you has ever proposed a moment in time when an
ape gave birth to a human child. The precise moment when the 'creatures'
being born carried more 'human' than 'animal' characteristics will
probably never be historically pin-pointed.
You do not make me angry. Usually you make me laugh. Even though one
should not mock the afflicted.
Read back what you have written .... time and time again you have made
your stupid cracks about people who believe ggggggggrandma was a
chimpanzee or jackasses etc. Knowing that no-one here believes any such
thing.
The point is, I'm sure none of us gives a damn whether you choose to
believe this. It is your right to believe in fairies if you wish. But
why do we have to put up with your rants and tirades simply because we
reject your views. Why not just shut up and believe what you want to
believe and extend the same courtesy to the rest of us?
Liz (Greenwich UK)
P&D Schultz
> <...> I <...> do _not_ have an interest in debating with
> people who seem to believe in fairy tales <...>
The movement of the planets, the procession of the seasons, and thunder
& lightening were all explained through fairy tales until we learned
their true explanations through science (and not through some sacred
text). You should open up the mind that God gave you.
\\P. Schultz
W F Sill
part:
>In your previous message to me, you stated: "Just answer the
>question or continue to rant about my POV - your choice."
>
>In that sentence you stated that I ranted about your POV.
>
>The fact is I have never even mentioned your point of view on the
>topic under discussion, namely creationism vs. evolution.
>I will expect your public apology forthwith. Or are you going to
>continue to lie about this matter? I think I know the answer.
I think I am, getting the picture: ANY suggestion that the Great
Richard Pence might be perceived as ranting (pontificating at length
in opposition) is a "lie". Sorry, but you must have learned a
different definition of "lie" than my dictionaries provide, Richard.
A lie is an attempt to deceive. I have NOT attempted to deceive
anyone, by any stretch of imagination. Take a hike.
I guess I should not be surprised that the "evolution" mindset has so
thoroughly permeated the world. The unproven and unprovable theory
that a "primal ooze" begot life has been the fiction of choice in the
educational system for generations now. The idea that an amoeba
became a horse, though totally unsupported except by elaborate
theories, has been beaten into naive heads for so long and so
successfully that people are willing to make complete asses of
themselves (pun intended) swallowing the whole thing - hook, line,
bobber & pole.
What DOES surprise me a little is that objections to the Creation POV
are so virulent. Those of us who believe it are not merely told
about your alternate theories, we are classified as religious nuts,
liars, cowards, etc etc. We are told to get out of here and stop
disturbing the peace. And individuals who call us liars for
expressing opposing views demand apologies. Egad.
Censorship has been accomplished in the schoolrooms of the world for
the most part, but until the Thought Police can strangle Unapproved
Ideas here in usenet, you will still have to read, from time to time,
that a few of us believe humans were created by God, and that we are
NOT descended from animals.
W F Sill
midst of here usual shrewish rant:
>Imagine, if you will Will, that very very slowly over many many
>generations certain of these 'animals' acquired traits which we might
>characterise as 'human'. Until they reached the point where they were
>more related to what we now call 'human' than their ape cousins who
>remained what we now call'animal'. Miniscule changes over vast periods
>of time. That is the key which you seem determined not to confront or
>understand. No-one but you has ever proposed a moment in time when an
>ape gave birth to a human child. The precise moment when the 'creatures'
>being born carried more 'human' than 'animal' characteristics will
>probably never be historically pin-pointed.
I am fully aware of that theory and find it utterly without evidence
or merit. You can easily show that horses of today are different than
horses of many generations back. What you cannot show - and never
has been shown - is that a fish became a horse. What you certainly
cannot show is that a particular primate "gradually acquired" human
traits and eventually "became" human. You can theorize until the cows
come home, and you may believe it if you like. But you cannot prove
it and certainly cannot conmvince others by bullying and name-calling
as you've attempted..
I find it MUCH easier to believe that God created us as depicted in
the Bible, but I don't expect YOU to believe it. What I do expect is
that as a genealogist you would NEVER claim a cucumber as a cousin or
a chimp as an ancestor. Doing so totally disqualifies you as a
credible researcher.
johnf
Where does he fit into the scheme of things?
"W F Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:tbmp2t4lguh9to43n...@4ax.com...
> Not long ago, Liz <pan...@dircon.co.uk> wrote the following in the
> midst of here usual shrewish rant:
>
> >Imagine, if you will Will, that very very slowly over many many
> >generations certain of these 'animals' acquired traits which we might
> >characterise as 'human'. Until they reached the point where they were
> >more related to what we now call 'human' than their ape cousins who
> >remained what we now call'animal'. Miniscule changes over vast periods
> >of time. That is the key which you seem determined not to confront or
> >understand. No-one but you has ever proposed a moment in time when an
> >ape gave birth to a human child. The precise moment when the 'creatures'
> >being born carried more 'human' than 'animal' characteristics will
> >probably never be historically pin-pointed.
>