A Myth about Creation: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
gabriel
Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
the first place.
Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
especially, some Christians did claim that species were
immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
created roughly 6,000 years ago.
Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
world.
More information:
Fixity of species:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
Do Species Change:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
Bara-what ?
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
RichTravsky
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
>
> Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
>
> A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> the first place.
>
> especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>
> Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
> created roughly 6,000 years ago.
Explain all those fossils...
> Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
Frankie Lee
> gabriel wrote:
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
>
> > Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
>
> > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> > the first place.
>
> > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>
> > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
>
> Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
>
> > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
>
> Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
>
> > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
>
> Explain all those fossils...
>
> > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
>
> Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
> and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> > genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
> > world.
Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
human
and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
**You see,your assumptions are flawed.The Bible is already a huge
collection,no reason to make it even bigger or like an
Encyclopedias.The Bible shouldn't have explain the details of
science,or meticulous details which is not relevant to the main
subject.
Human are all creatures of God,the Bible said so.A monkey could
walk,and human also could walk.The functions of movements in our limbs
perhaps also bore resemblance.O.1 % different,is hell alot,in science
concept.
Juan M
"Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6322acb-3159-4270...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
It is the brains of the Creationists that are incapable of change.
Dave Oldridge
news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation
>#paginateTop
>
>Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
>
>A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
>of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
>obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
>straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
>the first place.
Actually, some creationists have unwisely made the claim. Some even to
this day.
>
>Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
>especially, some Christians did claim that species were
>immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
>not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
>any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>
>Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
>created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
>that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
>created roughly 6,000 years ago.
"Baramin" is an artificial word concocted from the Hebrew phrase "miyn
bara" found in Genesis and translated as "created kind." But my Hebrew
sources tell me that a very reasonable translation would be "species."
The fact that the author of that part of Genesis had observed what we
still see today--that species generally reproduce by giving rise to
members of their own species in no way makes fixity of species or "kind"
(whatever you think you mean by the term) a law of nature, even according
to the scripture you are so anxious to misinterpret.
>
>Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
>in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
>evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
>genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
>world.
Such changes are precisely what scientists mean by evolution. Lying
about things like this is what is condemning you to an eternity in a lake
of fire.
>
>More information:
>Fixity of species:
>www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
>
>Do Species Change:
>www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
>
>Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
>www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
>
>Bara-what ?
>www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
Yes, bara-what?
Barmin: A creationist-coined word that is said to mean "created kind."
This fleible pseudotaxon is excellent for avoiding discussion of actual
directly-observed evolution events while denying those inferred from the
fossil record and from genetics. It has no objective, scientific
definition and is therefore a great tool in fallacies of equivocation.
Your master, Satan, is well pleased with such work, but tends to get
quite testy when the lies stop working.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Pat Magroyne
> God
> created roughly 6,000 years ago.
LOL
RichTravsky
Oh look, it's Wanker Lee. Glad to see you admit the bible is no science
document and should not be relied upon as such.
RT
gabriel
<patma...@null.net> wrote:
Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
rocks were only a few decades old.
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
: >
: > Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
: >
: > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
: > of species (i.e., species donīŋŊt change). And since species
: > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
: > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
: > the first place.
: >
: > Prior to the publication of DarwinīŋŊs On the Origin of Species
: > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
: > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
: > not mean the same thing then as it does nowīŋŊnor was there ever
: > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
: >
: > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
:
: Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
:
: > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
:
: Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
:
: > that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
: > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
:
: Explain all those fossils...
Fossils don't come with tags indicating how old they are. The
scientists use dating methods rife with assumptions. Google the
RATE group and how they submitted rocks merely a few decades old,
and they came back dating them over a million years old.
:
: > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
: > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
:
: Where does the bible explain mutations?
The Bible doesn't have to explain every detail of every thing we
demand that it does, else it proves something is not true.
: Where do they explain how human
: and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
Alleles are there to represent features of the animal, and that
since chimps and humans have similar features: eyes, ears, noses,
mouths, brains, hearts, lungs, intestines, stomachs, arms, legs,
hands, and on and on, that it follows they'd have DNA similarity.
Meanwhile common designer is another possible explanation.
The Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record proves they couldn't
have evolved from a common ancestor once upon a time. The
Cambrian Explosion falsifies the fish to man version of
evolution, but of course nothing will cause them to abandon their
attack on God.
But *any* beliefs about what fossils means to people concerning
origins cannot qualify as science as those beliefs are not
observable, not testable and not verifiable - one can only
believe what they want us to believe about them.
:
: > evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
:
No, those scientists mean the fish to man version of evolution,
which is a far cry from [flies] evolving over generations, but
remaining [flies] no matter how much they adapt or mutate.
Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
human race.
: >
: >More information:
gabriel
<juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Truth doesn't change. What would you say to someone who called
you dogmatic, closed-minded and incapable of change because you
cling to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4? Exactly the point.
:
:
:
:
:
Sid9
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ogusg51n8saun8ctq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : >
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : >
> : >
> : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > the first place.
> : >
> : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> :
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> :
> : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> :
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> :
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : Explain all those fossils...
>
> Fossils don't come with tags indicating how old they are. The
> scientists use dating methods rife with assumptions. Google the
> RATE group and how they submitted rocks merely a few decades old,
> and they came back dating them over a million years old.
.
.
.
.
.
.........................
Where does one find rocks a "few decades old"?
.........................
.
.
.
.
.
>
> :
> : > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> : > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations?
>
> The Bible doesn't have to explain every detail of every thing we
> demand that it does, else it proves something is not true.
>
>
> : Where do they explain how human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> Alleles are there to represent features of the animal, and that
> since chimps and humans have similar features: eyes, ears, noses,
> mouths, brains, hearts, lungs, intestines, stomachs, arms, legs,
> hands, and on and on, that it follows they'd have DNA similarity.
>
> Meanwhile common designer is another possible explanation.
>
> The Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record proves they couldn't
> have evolved from a common ancestor once upon a time. The
> Cambrian Explosion falsifies the fish to man version of
> evolution, but of course nothing will cause them to abandon their
> attack on God.
>
> But *any* beliefs about what fossils means to people concerning
> origins cannot qualify as science as those beliefs are not
> observable, not testable and not verifiable - one can only
> believe what they want us to believe about them.
>
>
> :
Dave Oldridge
news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
>:
>: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat
>: >ion #paginateTop
Fish to man evolution is a logical inference from the fossil record and
from the evolution we see happening all around us.
>
>Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
>evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
>[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
>beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
>those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
>fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
>you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
>impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
>human race.
Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
a fortnight in the lab. However, I can provide you with a very nice
protocol for producing new genera in plants with a single mutation of a
particular type. Look up triticale. The thing does, very rarely, happen
in animals, too, but it is actually quite common in self-fertilizing
plants.
>: >More information:
>: >Fixity of species:
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
No fixity is observed.
>: >
>: >Do Species Change:
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
Many changes are observerd.
>: >
>: >Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
These kinds of hybrids ARE predicted in evolution. But they are found
where speciation has not fully resulted in genetic incompatibility. The
key factor for speciation is genetic isolation. Subpopulations that have
no gene flow between them, or very little, whatever the reason for the
isolation, will diverge.
>: >
>: >Bara-what ?
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
>:
>: Yes, bara-what?
>:
>: Barmin: A creationist-coined word that is said to mean "created
>: kind." This fleible pseudotaxon is excellent for avoiding discussion
>: of actual directly-observed evolution events while denying those
>: inferred from the fossil record and from genetics. It has no
>: objective, scientific definition and is therefore a great tool in
>: fallacies of equivocation.
>:
>: Your master, Satan, is well pleased with such work, but tends to get
>: quite testy when the lies stop working.
See above. The biblical scholarship of creationist hack polemicists is
almost on a par with their scientific scholarship. Which is to say that
their Bible scholarship, like their scientific scholarship is all
distorted so as to support their damned (literally) heresy!
--
Dave Oldridge+
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
>
> Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
>
> A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity
> Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> evolution
Ahhhh, pulling out ol'-faithful (heh) "fudge the species-kind
argument" again, I see, along with a good dollop of the "evolution-is-
not-evolution" mantra.
Wild Bill
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:35:35 -0800, "Juan M"
> <juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> : "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> :
> news:f6322acb-3159-4270...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> : On Nov 8, 12:48 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> : > gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : >
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
> : >
> : > > Myth 10: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
> : >
> : > > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > > of species (i.e., species don't change). And since species
> : > > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > > the first place.
> : >
> : > > Prior to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species
> : > > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> : >
> : > Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> : >
> : > > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> : >
> : > Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> : >
> : > > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : >
> : > Explain all those fossils...
> : >
> : > > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> : > > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> : >
> : > Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
> human
> : > and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> : >
> : > > genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
> : > > world.
> :
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
> : human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> :
> : **You see,your assumptions are flawed.The Bible is already a huge
> : collection,no reason to make it even bigger or like an
> : Encyclopedias.The Bible shouldn't have explain the details of
> : science,or meticulous details which is not relevant to the main
> : subject.
> :
> : Human are all creatures of God,the Bible said so.A monkey could
> : walk,and human also could walk.The functions of movements in our limbs
> : perhaps also bore resemblance.O.1 % different,is hell alot,in science
> : concept.
> :
> :
> : It is the brains of the Creationists that are incapable of change.
>
> Truth doesn't change. What would you say to someone who called
> you dogmatic, closed-minded and incapable of change because you
> cling to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4? Exactly the point.
Are you really able to add that far, Gabriel? Gosh...I'm impressed!
>
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
RichTravsky
Talk about moving the goalposts around...
RichTravsky
gabriel wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : >
> : > Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
> : >
> : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
> : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > the first place.
> : >
> : > Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
> : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
> : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> :
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> :
> : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> :
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> :
> : > that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
> : > evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
RichTravsky
>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> <patma...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > God
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : LOL
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
RichTravsky
No scientist says that. This is the sort of lying creinists go through.
Science relies on the fossil record and the study of genetics.
RichTravsky
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:35:35 -0800, "Juan M"
> <juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
An evolution is the truth.
RichTravsky
> Where does one find rocks a "few decades old"?
You have to squint really hard...
RichTravsky
> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >:
Tiktaalik.
> >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
> >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
> >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
> >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
> >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
> >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
> >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
> >human race.
>
> Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
> fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
> a fortnight in the lab. However, I can provide you with a very nice
Cretinists do.
> protocol for producing new genera in plants with a single mutation of a
> particular type. Look up triticale. The thing does, very rarely, happen
> in animals, too, but it is actually quite common in self-fertilizing
> plants.
>
> >: >More information:
> >: >Fixity of species:
> >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
>
> No fixity is observed.
Not even in humans.
> >: >Do Species Change:
> >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
>
> Many changes are observerd.
Even in humans.
> >: >Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
> >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
>
> These kinds of hybrids ARE predicted in evolution. But they are found
> where speciation has not fully resulted in genetic incompatibility. The
> key factor for speciation is genetic isolation. Subpopulations that have
> no gene flow between them, or very little, whatever the reason for the
> isolation, will diverge.
And speciation is observed today.
> >: >Bara-what ?
> >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
> >:
> >: Yes, bara-what?
> >:
> >: Barmin: A creationist-coined word that is said to mean "created
> >: kind." This fleible pseudotaxon is excellent for avoiding discussion
> >: of actual directly-observed evolution events while denying those
> >: inferred from the fossil record and from genetics. It has no
> >: objective, scientific definition and is therefore a great tool in
> >: fallacies of equivocation.
> >:
> >: Your master, Satan, is well pleased with such work, but tends to get
> >: quite testy when the lies stop working.
>
> See above. The biblical scholarship of creationist hack polemicists is
> almost on a par with their scientific scholarship. Which is to say that
> their Bible scholarship, like their scientific scholarship is all
> distorted so as to support their damned (literally) heresy!
A stunning example of biblical "scholarship"
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
19 October 2005
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of theory was so broad it would also include astrology.
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not committed to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. I cant point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated, he said. .
Behe said he had come up with his own broader definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it, he says.
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behes definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
...
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
: > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
: >
: > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : > God
: > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
: > :
: > : LOL
: >
: > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
:
: The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
:
: > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: Hey. Cupcake. Learn how to post. I didn't write any of this.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
...
: Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
...
: Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
...
: Explain all those fossils...
...
:
: Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
: and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
...
Well unless someone else posted it using your account, the above
is what was posted with your account name.
:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
: > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > : >
: > : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
: > : >
: > : > Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
: > : >
: > : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
: > : > of species (i.e., species donīŋŊt change). And since species
: > : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
: > : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
: > : > the first place.
: > : >
: > : > Prior to the publication of DarwinīŋŊs On the Origin of Species
: > : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
: > : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
: > : > not mean the same thing then as it does nowīŋŊnor was there ever
: > : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
: > : >
: > : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
: > :
: > : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
: > :
: > : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
: > :
: > : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
: > :
: > : > that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
: > :
: > : > evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
Yes, it's a ~belief on what you want things to mean~ attached to
dead bones and fossils, and even the things you see around you.
The ~belief itself~ is not observable, not testable and not
verifiable.
Creation by God is also a logical inference from the fossil
record (Cambrian Explosion: global flood), DNA and the ability
for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
animals and even a single cell.
: >
: >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
: >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
: >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
: >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
: >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
: >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
: >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
: >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
: >human race.
:
: Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
: fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
: a fortnight in the lab.
You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
lab or in life.
Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
to man. The fact is, the belief that such a thing can happen is
unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Please cite the
scientific tests that shows this happening. The only thing we
ever observed happening is populations of [flies] producing more
flies, and worst case a slightly different species of [flies]
(but they are still [flies]!) - that's Speciation. Not the fish
to man version of evolution no matter how much they mutate, no
matter how much the allele frequencies change. And that's a
scientific fact. In that effect, what is repeatable, observable,
testable and verifiable: that this ~never~ happens no matter how
much they supposedly mutate and allele frequencies change. So in
effect, science actually falsifies / disproves the fish to man
version of evolution!
However, if you have such a test case, please cite it to back up
what you believe actually qualifying as science. Thank you.
: However, I can provide you with a very nice
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Actually that's exactly what those that believe in the fish to
man version of evolution say. Please read up more on the topic.
: Science relies on the fossil record and the study of genetics.
Yes, they rely on their beliefs of what they want dead bones and
fossils to mean to them, and their beliefs on what they want gene
similarity to mean to them.
And their beliefs:
1. Some populations of Initial life (single celled organisms)
evolved into fish. (And apparently dead matter created life)
2. Some populations of fish evolved into amphibians.
3. Some populations of amphibians evolved into reptiles
4. Some populations of reptiles evolved into mammals
5. Some populations of mammals (specifically ape-like creatures)
evolved into human beings (and birds, for that matter)
So they do in fact believe populations of fish evolved
eventually, over generations, eventually into hippos, giraffes,
eagles and human beings. Welcome to science fiction dishonestly
passed off as science, let alone fact.
:
: > : >
RichTravsky
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:02:59 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> : gabriel wrote:
> : > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> : > <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> : > : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
Flies evolving into animals? Cite a scientist who says that ->
> : Science relies on the fossil record and the study of genetics.
>
> Yes, they rely on their beliefs of what they want dead bones and
You don't know anything about osteology I see. Or forensics.
> fossils to mean to them, and their beliefs on what they want gene
> similarity to mean to them.
>
> And their beliefs:
> 1. Some populations of Initial life (single celled organisms)
> evolved into fish. (And apparently dead matter created life)
> 2. Some populations of fish evolved into amphibians.
> 3. Some populations of amphibians evolved into reptiles
> 4. Some populations of reptiles evolved into mammals
All shown in the fossil record.
> 5. Some populations of mammals (specifically ape-like creatures)
> evolved into human beings (and birds, for that matter)
No mammal evolved into a bird. And no one claims that.
> So they do in fact believe populations of fish evolved
> eventually, over generations, eventually into hippos, giraffes,
> eagles and human beings. Welcome to science fiction dishonestly
> passed off as science, let alone fact.
Fish evolved limbs and took to the land. Fact. Get over it.
Educate yourself:
RichTravsky
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> : > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : > God
> : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : > :
> : > : LOL
> : >
> : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> :
> : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
>
> www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
>
> www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_d
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#radio
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#geology
ETC
> :
RichTravsky
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> : ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
As the fossils get younger, the more they resemble modern forms. Fact.
> Creation by God is also a logical inference from the fossil
> record (Cambrian Explosion: global flood), DNA and the ability
What flood?
> for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
> miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
> happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
> animals and even a single cell.
Not observable, not testable, not verifiable.
> : >
> : >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
> : >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
> : >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> : >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
> : >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
> : >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
> : >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
> : >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
> : >human race.
> :
> : Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
> : fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
> : a fortnight in the lab.
>
> You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
> lab or in life.
Do you live millions of years? No? But speciation is happening right now.
> Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
Show a creation. Now.
> generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
> [flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
> to man. The fact is, the belief that such a thing can happen is
> unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Please cite the
> scientific tests that shows this happening. The only thing we
> ever observed happening is populations of [flies] producing more
> flies, and worst case a slightly different species of [flies]
> (but they are still [flies]!) - that's Speciation. Not the fish
> to man version of evolution no matter how much they mutate, no
> matter how much the allele frequencies change. And that's a
> scientific fact. In that effect, what is repeatable, observable,
> testable and verifiable: that this ~never~ happens no matter how
> much they supposedly mutate and allele frequencies change. So in
> effect, science actually falsifies / disproves the fish to man
> version of evolution!
>
> However, if you have such a test case, please cite it to back up
> what you believe actually qualifying as science. Thank you.
Give a scientific cite for a creation. Or a space alien creating life forms
here.
Sid9
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B15E878...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> gabriel wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> : >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> : ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> : >:
>> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat
>> : >: >ion #paginateTop
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Myth 10: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
>> : >: >
>> : >: >A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the
>> fixity
>> : >: >of species (i.e., species don't change). And since species
>> : >: >obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
>> : >: >straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really
>> there in
>> : >: >the first place.
>> : >:
>> : >: Actually, some creationists have unwisely made the claim.
>> Some even
>> : >: to this day.
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Prior to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species
>> : >: >especially, some Christians did claim that species were
>> : >: >immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species
>> did
>> : >: >any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within
>> each
>> : >: >created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We
>> know
>> : >: >created roughly 6,000 years ago.
>> : >:
>> : >: "Baramin" is an artificial word concocted from the Hebrew
>> phrase
>> : >: "miyn bara" found in Genesis and translated as "created kind."
>> But
>> : >: my Hebrew sources tell me that a very reasonable translation
>> would be
>> : >: "species."
>> : >:
>> : >: The fact that the author of that part of Genesis had observed
>> what we
>> : >: still see today--that species generally reproduce by giving
>> rise to
>> : >: members of their own species in no way makes fixity of species
>> or
>> : >: "kind" (whatever you think you mean by the term) a law of
>> nature,
>> : >: even according to the scripture you are so anxious to
>> misinterpret.
>> : >:
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Species changing via natural selection and mutations is
>> perfectly
>> : >: >in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
?
?
?
What happened to the guy that proposed "decades old rocks"?
?
?
?
He never came back to explain where they may be found
?
?
?
?
RichTravsky
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:15 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : Hey. Cupcake. Learn how to post. I didn't write any of this.
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
>
> ...
>
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
>
> ...
>
> : Explain all those fossils...
>
> ...
>
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> ...
>
> Well unless someone else posted it using your account, the above
> is what was posted with your account name.
Change your quote character
> :
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> : > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : > : >
> : > : > Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
> : > : >
> : > : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > : > of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
> : > : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > : > the first place.
> : > : >
> : > : > Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
> : > : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > : > not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
> : > : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : > : >
> : > : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> : > :
> : > : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> : > :
> : > : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> : > :
> : > : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> : > :
> : > : > that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
> : > : > evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
Dave Oldridge
news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
>:
>: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat
>: >ion #paginateTop
Fish to man evolution is a logical inference from the fossil record and
from the evolution we see happening all around us.
>
>Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
>evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
>[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
>beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
>those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
>fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
>you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
>impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
>human race.
Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
a fortnight in the lab. However, I can provide you with a very nice
protocol for producing new genera in plants with a single mutation of a
particular type. Look up triticale. The thing does, very rarely, happen
in animals, too, but it is actually quite common in self-fertilizing
plants.
>: >More information:
>: >Fixity of species:
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
No fixity is observed.
>: >
>: >Do Species Change:
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
Many changes are observerd.
>: >
>: >Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
These kinds of hybrids ARE predicted in evolution. But they are found
where speciation has not fully resulted in genetic incompatibility. The
key factor for speciation is genetic isolation. Subpopulations that have
no gene flow between them, or very little, whatever the reason for the
isolation, will diverge.
>: >
>: >Bara-what ?
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
>:
>: Yes, bara-what?
>:
>: Barmin: A creationist-coined word that is said to mean "created
>: kind." This fleible pseudotaxon is excellent for avoiding discussion
>: of actual directly-observed evolution events while denying those
>: inferred from the fossil record and from genetics. It has no
>: objective, scientific definition and is therefore a great tool in
>: fallacies of equivocation.
>:
>: Your master, Satan, is well pleased with such work, but tends to get
>: quite testy when the lies stop working.
See above. The biblical scholarship of creationist hack polemicists is
almost on a par with their scientific scholarship. Which is to say that
their Bible scholarship, like their scientific scholarship is all
distorted so as to support their damned (literally) heresy!
--
Dave Oldridge+
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
: > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > : >
: > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
: > : > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : > God
: > : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
: > : > :
: > : > : LOL
: > : >
: > : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
: > :
: > : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
: >
: > www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
: >
: > www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
: >
: > www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
: >
: > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_d
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#radio
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#geology
:
: ETC
Refuted by the RATE group experiments quoted above.
:
: > :
: > : > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:0bs4h5l6nijtqgjq4...@4ax.com:
:
: >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: >: news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
: >:
: >: >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
: >: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: >: >
: >: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: >: >: news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
: >: >:
: >: >: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-cr
: >: >: >eat ion #paginateTop
:
: You obviously have trouble with the concept of logical inference. Not
: surprising. Dosing your brain daily with cretionist tripe will have that
: effect.
It's sad you can only defend what you believe with personal
attacks, Dave.
:
: >
: >Creation by God is also a logical inference from the fossil
: >record (Cambrian Explosion: global flood), DNA and the ability
: >for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
: >miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
: >happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
: >animals and even a single cell.
:
: This is simply one of your pet lies.
Prove it's a lie, Dave. We're not the ones claiming faith in that
passes for scientific fact, Dave. Yet you claim it's scientific
fact that populations of fish can evolve over generations
eventually into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
:
: : >
: >: >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
: >: >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
: >: >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
: >: >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
: >: >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
: >: >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
: >: >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
: >: >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
: >: >human race.
: >:
: >: Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
: >: fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of
: >: evolution in a fortnight in the lab.
: >
: >You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
: >lab or in life.
:
: Actually you are simply telling me that you WILL NOT see what is right
: before your eyes.
Show such a thing happening in a lab. You are not being truthful,
Dave.
:
: >Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
: >generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
: >[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
: >to man. The fact is, the belief that such a thing can happen is
:
: Yet men are still apes.
Calling us apes does not make us apes, Dave. We can look at
what's right before our eyes and see that apes and human beings
are clearly drastically different, Dave.
: The fact is, you wouldn't be able to spot the
: bifurcation of a genus. You are too wilfully blind to the evidence to
: see it if it happened right in front of you.
:
: > unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Please cite the
: >scientific tests that shows this happening. The only thing we
: >ever observed happening is populations of [flies] producing more
: >flies, and worst case a slightly different species of [flies]
: >(but they are still [flies]!) - that's Speciation. Not the fish
:
: Speciation is all we need to see. All higher taxa are arbitrary.
Sorry but populations of [flies] evolving, over generations, into
animals that are a slightly different species of [flies] but
~still [flies]~ (which is all Speciation ~ever~ shows) is a far
cry from the fish to man version of evolution, Dave: populations
of [flies] evolving, over generations, into animals that are
clearly no longer [flies] at all. Much like hippos, giraffes,
eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at all. Until
anyone shows such a test case, the belief that this happens is
just that: a belief - not observable, not testable, not
veritable, not science.
Please back up your claim that such a belief is science by
showing a test case of that version of evolution happening, Dave.
You won't, because you can't, because you know it's not science.
Want to prove yourself right, Dave? Do what science demands: show
a test case of your beliefs actually happening. You can't. End of
story.
And to claim God did not directly create human beings is to make
God and Christ a liar:
Genesis 2:7 KJV
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul.
Genesis 2:21-24 KJV
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made
he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh
of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out
of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
4 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not
read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
flesh?
To be ashamed of the Words of God and Jesus Christ on this or any
matter:
Mark 8:34-38 KJV
34 And when he had called the people unto him with his
disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but
whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the
same shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my
words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall
the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his
Father with the holy angels.
:
:
: >to man version of evolution no matter how much they mutate, no
: >matter how much the allele frequencies change. And that's a
:
: Why? Because you say so?
No, because it's never been observed, and it's not
testable/verifiable, Dave - you want to call it science, yet it
fails to qualify as science for that precise reason.
: We see a rate of evolution in living species
: that is quite consistent with what we observe in the fossil record.
Why? Because you say so?
It's a belief on what that means to you, Dave.
: Not
: only does that record indicate fish-to-man evolution, it demands no
: unusual or unobserved events.
Why? Because you say so?
See how that works, Dave?
:
:
: >scientific fact. In that effect, what is repeatable, observable,
: >testable and verifiable: that this ~never~ happens no matter how
: >much they supposedly mutate and allele frequencies change. So in
: >effect, science actually falsifies / disproves the fish to man
: >version of evolution!
:
: False. Speciations occur regularly. Eventually those WILL result in new
: genera, families, etc.
Wrong. It's your ~belief~ that they will. The fact is your belief
is never observed in the entire recorded history of the human
race
:
: >
: >However, if you have such a test case, please cite it to back up
: >what you believe actually qualifying as science. Thank you.
:
: If it takes 20 generations to produce a new species in fruit flies and
: one to produce a new genus in self-fertilizing plants, how long would you
: estimate it would take for a new family or a new phylum? Keep in mind
: that all taxa above 'species' are arbitrary. How we group the species is
: largely a committee decision. Species is the only one with really solid,
: objective criteria, at least in diploid species. Even that gets a bit
: vague in haploids.
:
: Your father, the devil, wants you to keep it up.
My father, the devil, wants me to stand by the authority and
accuracy of God's Word?
Your father, God, wants you to teach that God's Word cannot be
trusted and we should dismiss whatever we wish as just a
meaningless allegory?
Whatever you say, Dave. :-(
: The more Christians he
: can sidetrack from living their faith into defending pseudoscience, the
: better he likes it.
Psuedoscience is believing what cannot be observed and cannot be
shown and verified in a test case, Dave, yet is dishonestly
passed off as science.
If you have an actual test case of what you have more faith in
over God, by all means present it, Dave. You'd be the first. If
not, I suggest you stop the less than honest profession of
teaching that populations of fish evolved over generations into
hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings, and stop making God
out to be a liar. =(
Take care.
Dave Oldridge
news:jgtnh5di5jg8vjet7...@4ax.com:
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:56:30 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: news:0bs4h5l6nijtqgjq4...@4ax.com:
>:
>: >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>: >
>: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: >: news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
>: >:
>: >: >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>: >: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>: >: >
>: >: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: >: >: news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about
>: >: >: >-cr eat ion #paginateTop
Liar!
>
>:
>: >Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
>: >generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
>: >[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
>: >to man. The fact is, the belief that such a thing can happen is
>:
>: Yet men are still apes.
>
>Calling us apes does not make us apes, Dave. We can look at
>what's right before our eyes and see that apes and human beings
>are clearly drastically different, Dave.
We are apesbecause we share all the characteristics that differentiate
apes from other primates.
>
>: The fact is, you wouldn't be able to spot the
>: bifurcation of a genus. You are too wilfully blind to the evidence
>: to see it if it happened right in front of you.
>:
>: > unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Please cite the
>: >scientific tests that shows this happening. The only thing we
>: >ever observed happening is populations of [flies] producing more
>: >flies, and worst case a slightly different species of [flies]
>: >(but they are still [flies]!) - that's Speciation. Not the fish
>:
>: Speciation is all we need to see. All higher taxa are arbitrary.
>
>Sorry but populations of [flies] evolving, over generations, into
>animals that are a slightly different species of [flies] but
>~still [flies]~ (which is all Speciation ~ever~ shows) is a far
>cry from the fish to man version of evolution, Dave: populations
>of [flies] evolving, over generations, into animals that are
>clearly no longer [flies] at all. Much like hippos, giraffes,
>eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at all. Until
>anyone shows such a test case, the belief that this happens is
>just that: a belief - not observable, not testable, not
>veritable, not science.
You're not sorry, you're wilfully ignorant and intend to remain so.
>Please back up your claim that such a belief is science by
>showing a test case of that version of evolution happening, Dave.
You keep thinking you can get away with demanding 100 million years of
evolution be produced in a fortnight. You can't. Nobody will be fooled
by that LIE unless they are already a sucker for your damned (literally)
heretic cult.
>You won't, because you can't, because you know it's not science.
No, YOU kn ow that your demand is not science but you keep on repeating
it like a mantra. Fortunately, you will end up repeating it in a lake of
fire, not in MY ear forever.
>Want to prove yourself right, Dave? Do what science demands: show
>a test case of your beliefs actually happening. You can't. End of
>story.
Science does not demand what you say it does, LIAR!
>
>And to claim God did not directly create human beings is to make
>God and Christ a liar:
>Genesis 2:7 KJV
> 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
>and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
>a living soul.
And your literalist interpretation of this is more correct than the
Chruch's because you have an inside pipe to God?
>Genesis 2:21-24 KJV
> 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
>and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the
>flesh instead thereof;
> 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made
>he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
> 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh
>of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out
>of Man.
> 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
>and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
That's nice. But it isn't science. It's myth.
>
>Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
> 4 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not
>read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
>female,
> 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
>mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
>flesh?
>
>To be ashamed of the Words of God and Jesus Christ on this or any
>matter:
>Mark 8:34-38 KJV
> 34 And when he had called the people unto him with his
>disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me,
>let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
> 35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but
>whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the
>same shall save it.
> 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the
>whole world, and lose his own soul?
> 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
> 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my
>words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall
>the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his
>Father with the holy angels.
Again with all the private interpretations.
The devil must really LOVE you. You teach that we must lie about science
to be saved and you teach that your cult's teachers are the only correct
interpreters of scripture. Well GOD says you;re full of it. HE says
that false witness is a SIN. YOU say it's necessary for salvation.
>:
>: >to man version of evolution no matter how much they mutate, no
>: >matter how much the allele frequencies change. And that's a
>:
>: Why? Because you say so?
>
>No, because it's never been observed, and it's not
>testable/verifiable, Dave - you want to call it science, yet it
>fails to qualify as science for that precise reason.
Actually it is. You just can't repeat it. But the evidence is all there
and anyone with half a brain can see it. Bit then you HATE God for
giving you a brain and making the world so that youn have to actually use
the thing to get anywhere. I understand.
>
>: We see a rate of evolution in living species
>: that is quite consistent with what we observe in the fossil record.
>
>Why? Because you say so?
No, because scientists measured it.
>It's a belief on what that means to you, Dave.
No it's two different measures that happen to agree. Evolution predicts
that they will. Creation so-called science predicts that they won't
unless a deceiving god miraculously forces them.
>
>: Not
>: only does that record indicate fish-to-man evolution, it demands no
>: unusual or unobserved events.
>
>Why? Because you say so?
No, simply because it is what it is.
>See how that works, Dave?
Yes, I see you trying to deny the evidence again and again when lyijng
about it isn't working.
>:
>: >scientific fact. In that effect, what is repeatable, observable,
>: >testable and verifiable: that this ~never~ happens no matter how
>: >much they supposedly mutate and allele frequencies change. So in
>: >effect, science actually falsifies / disproves the fish to man
>: >version of evolution!
>:
>: False. Speciations occur regularly. Eventually those WILL result in
>: new genera, families, etc.
>
>Wrong. It's your ~belief~ that they will. The fact is your belief
>is never observed in the entire recorded history of the human
>race
No, it is my OBSerVATION that it will. You have no such observation
because you have wilfully blocked your perception and reason in your
defiance of God. That's your problem, not mine.
>
>:
>: >
>: >However, if you have such a test case, please cite it to back up
>: >what you believe actually qualifying as science. Thank you.
>:
>: If it takes 20 generations to produce a new species in fruit flies
>: and one to produce a new genus in self-fertilizing plants, how long
>: would you estimate it would take for a new family or a new phylum?
>: Keep in mind that all taxa above 'species' are arbitrary. How we
>: group the species is largely a committee decision. Species is the
>: only one with really solid, objective criteria, at least in diploid
>: species. Even that gets a bit vague in haploids.
>:
>: Your father, the devil, wants you to keep it up.
>
>My father, the devil, wants me to stand by the authority and
>accuracy of God's Word?
No, he wants you to keep lying about God and His word and teaching others
to do likewise. You're doing a great job, by the way. But don't expect
toi avoid that lake of fire. Your father, the devil, actually HATES us
all.
>
>Your father, God, wants you to teach that God's Word cannot be
>trusted and we should dismiss whatever we wish as just a
>meaningless allegory?
I never said that. You keep confusing your private interpretations of
ancient Hebrew myths with the WORD (logos) of God. You won't even HEAR
the Word of God that way.
>
>Whatever you say, Dave. :-(
>
>
>: The more Christians he
>: can sidetrack from living their faith into defending pseudoscience,
>: the better he likes it.
>
>Psuedoscience is believing what cannot be observed and cannot be
>shown and verified in a test case, Dave, yet is dishonestly
>passed off as science.
Pseudoscience is pretending that what is NOT science actually is. That
is what creationism is rooted in.
>If you have an actual test case of what you have more faith in
>over God, by all means present it, Dave. You'd be the first. If
>not, I suggest you stop the less than honest profession of
>teaching that populations of fish evolved over generations into
>hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings, and stop making God
>out to be a liar. =(
I never made God out to be a liar. That is YOUR heresy.
The creationist god IS a liar but is not the real creator.
>Take care.
You take care. Your days on earth are limited and if you devote them to
lying in God's name, there can only be one result.
Like most creationists, you seem to prefer repeating your lies to any
actual communion with God. In the end, you will, if you persist, be cast
into the outer darkness. This is not a guess. I KNOW that a sinner in
your present state cannot exist in God's direct presence.
--
Dave Oldridge+
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:02:59 -0700, RichTravsky
Flies are yet another kind of animal, more specifically and
precisely an insect. If you do not even know what is meant by the
word animal, you're unable to even talk about this subject.
Please go read up on it.
:
: > : Science relies on the fossil record and the study of genetics.
: >
: > Yes, they rely on their beliefs of what they want dead bones and
:
: You don't know anything about osteology I see. Or forensics.
:
: > fossils to mean to them, and their beliefs on what they want gene
: > similarity to mean to them.
: >
: > And their beliefs:
: > 1. Some populations of Initial life (single celled organisms)
: > evolved into fish. (And apparently dead matter created life)
: > 2. Some populations of fish evolved into amphibians.
: > 3. Some populations of amphibians evolved into reptiles
: > 4. Some populations of reptiles evolved into mammals
:
: All shown in the fossil record.
No, it's only their beliefs about what they want those dead bones
and fossils to mean to them that "show" anything. Meanwhile their
belief is not observable, and there's no test case showing it in
action, proving it's not science, merely a belief.
And you just got done saying, and I quote:
"No scientist says that. This is the sort of lying creinists go
through."
Now you agree they are saying exactly that, using their ~beliefs~
about what dead bones and fossils mean to them.
You seem to say whatever suits your argument at the time without
noticing you contradict yourself almost every time you post.
But what they believe the fossil record shows them is impossible
to actually observe, and there's certainly not a single test case
to back up what they claim: that populations of [flies] for
example, will evolve over generations into animals that are
clearly no longer [flies] at all. Same holds true for any animal
you replace with [flies]. Not observable, and no test case to
verify this actually happening. One can only believe in it, and
one can only believe what they want us to believe that dead bones
and fossils mean to them (and what they want it to mean to
everyone else).
Meanwhile since you seem to continue contradicting yourself, and
continue to fail showing your beliefs even qualify as science
with an actual observation or test case of what you believe, I
wish you luck in your beliefs.
:
: > 5. Some populations of mammals (specifically ape-like creatures)
RichTravsky
Still waiting.
> : > : Science relies on the fossil record and the study of genetics.
> : >
> : > Yes, they rely on their beliefs of what they want dead bones and
> :
> : You don't know anything about osteology I see. Or forensics.
> :
> : > fossils to mean to them, and their beliefs on what they want gene
> : > similarity to mean to them.
> : >
> : > And their beliefs:
> : > 1. Some populations of Initial life (single celled organisms)
> : > evolved into fish. (And apparently dead matter created life)
> : > 2. Some populations of fish evolved into amphibians.
> : > 3. Some populations of amphibians evolved into reptiles
> : > 4. Some populations of reptiles evolved into mammals
> :
> : All shown in the fossil record.
>
> No, it's only their beliefs about what they want those dead bones
> and fossils to mean to them that "show" anything. Meanwhile their
> belief is not observable, and there's no test case showing it in
> action, proving it's not science, merely a belief.
I can see you've never had a biology class. Fossil identification is a well
established branch of paleontology. The same principles apply to criminal
forensics.
> And you just got done saying, and I quote:
> "No scientist says that. This is the sort of lying creinists go
> through."
In response to you claiming
that populations of [flies] would evolve, over generations, into animals
> Now you agree they are saying exactly that, using their ~beliefs~
> about what dead bones and fossils mean to them.
> You seem to say whatever suits your argument at the time without
> noticing you contradict yourself almost every time you post.
>
> But what they believe the fossil record shows them is impossible
> to actually observe, and there's certainly not a single test case
> to back up what they claim: that populations of [flies] for
> example, will evolve over generations into animals that are
> clearly no longer [flies] at all. Same holds true for any animal
> you replace with [flies]. Not observable, and no test case to
> verify this actually happening. One can only believe in it, and
> one can only believe what they want us to believe that dead bones
> and fossils mean to them (and what they want it to mean to
> everyone else).
Do show us a verifiable test for creationism ->
LOL
> Meanwhile since you seem to continue contradicting yourself, and
> continue to fail showing your beliefs even qualify as science
> with an actual observation or test case of what you believe, I
> wish you luck in your beliefs.
There is no contradiction except for the one that ID is not creationism.
RichTravsky
Actually, those links refute the cretinists. They cover cretinist claims.
This one
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
is particularly damaging.
Get over it.
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Never said creation by God qualifies as science, so no need. But
evidence points to it nonetheless.
Notice meanwhile you failed to provide an observation or test
case of what you believe in, which shows it's also not science -
just a belief. You only offer reasons you have faith in your
beliefs.
:
: > generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Actually it's not.
And talkorigins.org is not a science site - it only blogs posts
in the newsgroup made by anyone that says something they agree
with.
Meanwhile the inflated dates remain exposed by actual test cases
in the lab.
Take care.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I'm calling you on your claim, Dave. Show a single observation or
test case of populations of [flies] evolving, over generations,
into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. You can
pick any animal you wish for [flies] in that sentence.
Dave Oldridge
news:ivh7i5hncjec0908l...@4ax.com:
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:27:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:jgtnh5di5jg8vjet7...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:56:30 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >: news:0bs4h5l6nijtqgjq4...@4ax.com:
>> >:
>> >: >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> >: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >: >
>> >: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >: >: news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
>> >: >:
>> >: >: >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> >: >: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >: >: >
>> >: >: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >: >: >: news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
>> >: >: >:
>> >: >: >: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-ab
>> >: >: >: >out -cr eat ion #paginateTop
And I'm calling you on yours. Show one observation that conflicts with
the hypothesis of single-cell to human. You will not be able to, thus
proving that your entire argument is a logical fallacy and that you knew
it (because I already explained that to you).
Is that all you've got? Just the same old, same old repeated LIE?
I guess you really WANT to end up in that lake of fire. Right?
--
Dave Oldridge+
Draccus
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> rocks were only a few decades old.
Funny thing is there is not a single thing published outside of the
Creationist Websites and I am sorry they are not actually known for
their science. Where are these "rocks" that are a few decades old
coming from? You are aware that rocks would not be carbon dated unless
they are organic in nature.
Draccus
> gabriel wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> > <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > :
> > : > God
> > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> > :
> > : LOL
>
> > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
>
>
>
>
> > submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> > methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> > rocks were only a few decades old.
I looked it up they are a Young Earth Creationist offshoot it is very
funny to read and yet very sad.
Draccus
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
>
> : gabriel wrote:
>
> : >
> : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne: > <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : > God
> : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : > :
> : > : LOL
> : >
> : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> :
> : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
>
> www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
>
> www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
>
> :
> : > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
> : > submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> : > methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> : > rocks were only a few decades old.
Yeah they made me laugh and laugh and then cry because you all are so
damn dumb.
Draccus
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:03:12 -0700, RichTravsky
>
> : gabriel wrote:
>
> : >
> : > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky: > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
They like you could not refute that the sun came out last Tuesday.
Draccus
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:28:09 -0700, RichTravsky
>
>
>
>
>
> <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > gabriel wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:03:12 -0700, RichTravsky
> > > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > > : gabriel wrote:
> > > : >
> > > : > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
> > > : >
> > > : > : gabriel wrote:
> > > : > : >
> > > : > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
have no background in science to prove their religious beliefs are
true. They use information that is distorted and they lie.
Sid9
"Draccus" <dracc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbabbfee-d7a9-4ec3...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
.
I had posed a question as to where "rocks were only a few decades old"
might be found.
"rocks were only a few decades old" is the dumbest thing I had ever
heard.
RichTravsky
The YECs. Heh. Fitting square pegs into round holes. Most amusing.
RichTravsky
No answer.
> : > for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
> : > miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
> : > happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
> : > animals and even a single cell.
> :
> : Not observable, not testable, not verifiable.
No answer.
> : > : >
> : > : >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
> : > : >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
> : > : >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> : > : >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
> : > : >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
> : > : >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
> : > : >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
> : > : >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
> : > : >human race.
> : > :
> : > : Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
> : > : fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
> : > : a fortnight in the lab.
> : >
> : > You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
> : > lab or in life.
> :
> : Do you live millions of years? No? But speciation is happening right now.
> :
> : > Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
> :
> : Show a creation. Now.
>
> Never said creation by God qualifies as science, so no need. But
> evidence points to it nonetheless.
What evidence? Note: Superstition not admissible.
> Notice meanwhile you failed to provide an observation or test
> case of what you believe in, which shows it's also not science -
> just a belief. You only offer reasons you have faith in your
> beliefs.
Meanwhile, you fail to provide any evidence or observation of creation
or space aliens.
> :
RichTravsky
Actually it is.
> And talkorigins.org is not a science site - it only blogs posts
icr is not a science site.
Take care.
RichTravsky
Sid's still waiting for that whopper to be backed up too.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You're the one that says your beliefs are scientific. That means
it's either observable, or one can show it happening in a test
case. That being the case, again, Dave:
Show a single observation or test case of populations of [flies]
evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly no
longer [flies] at all. You can pick any animal you wish for
[flies] in that sentence.
Or you can dishonestly run from backing up your less than
truthful claim, Dave.
Dave Oldridge
news:vtmti51895uumg45h...@4ax.com:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:06:18 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:ivh7i5hncjec0908l...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:27:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:jgtnh5di5jg8vjet7...@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >> >On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:56:30 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> >> ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >: news:0bs4h5l6nijtqgjq4...@4ax.com:
>> >> >:
>> >> >: >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> >> >: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >> >: >
>> >> >: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >: >: news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
>> >> >: >:
>> >> >: >: >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> >> >: >: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >> >: >: >
>> >> >: >: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >: >: >: news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
>> >> >: >: >:
>> >> >: >: >: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths
>> >> >: >: >: >-ab out -cr eat ion #paginateTop
You are still a chordate. Why do you expect something that we did not
say happens to be demonstrated?
>
>Or you can dishonestly run from backing up your less than
>truthful claim, Dave.
I see YOU are running towards the [pit as fast as your lying fingers can
type.
My claim is truthful Your false witness is noted.
>
>
>>
>>
>> I guess you really WANT to end up in that lake of fire. Right?
Apparently you do. If that is so, just say so. I have some influence
with the judge. It shouldn't be too hard to get a conviction if that's
what you want.
Of course I don't believe you care. I think you value the temporary
approval of your fellow cultists far more than you do your eternal life!
--
Dave Oldridge+
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Really? So according to evolutionism people didn't evolve from
ape like ancestors?
Mammals didn't evolve from reptiles?
Reptiles didn't evolve from amphibians?
Amphibians didn't evolve from fish?
You are not being truthful, Dave. Not to mention you escaped yet
again showing an observation of any such thing happening, nor a
test case showing it happening - not science. =(
Dave Oldridge
news:t2nnj5pcpa62d757q...@4ax.com:
>> >> >> >: >: >: >ths -ab out -cr eat ion #paginateTop
Well, PEOPLEare apelike and their parents are (or were) all apelike, so
it is clear that humans descend from apelike ancestors. What is also
clear is that we share with chimps the exact same broken gene in the set
that, in other mammal species generates vitamin C in the liver. So, in
my theory, that is an artifact of descent from a common ancestor, whereas
in yours it seems to be the whim of a deceitful, tickster deity that is
possibly a malicious spirit.
>Mammals didn't evolve from reptiles?
Of course they did, leaving enough transitional fossils that the boundary
ha to be set arbitrarily on the basis of bone structure in the head.
>Reptiles didn't evolve from amphibians?
Of course they did, leaving fossils like Seymouria.
>Amphibians didn't evolve from fish?
Tiktaalik.
>You are not being truthful, Dave. Not to mention you escaped yet
>again showing an observation of any such thing happening, nor a
>test case showing it happening - not science. =(
You are redefining science to deliberately exclude physical evidence of
past events. This is why, if I ever committed a murder, I would like to
be tried by an honest creationist judge (oxymoron conceded). The jury
would have to acquit unless they were presented with believable
eyewitness testimony. All forensic evidence would be banned, you see.
--
Dave Oldridge+
RichTravsky
> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:13:20 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >> >> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >> >> >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >> >> >: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >: >: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >> >> >: >: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
At the Dover trial, Behe had to admit that the ID version of science is
so ... watered down ... that astrology qualifies as science.
Pat Magroyne
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>
> <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
> submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> rocks were only a few decades old.
Sometimes there are errors.
But the earth is much older than 6,000 years old.