Academic Murder
Michael Burton
falsely depict that human embryoąs Śevolveą through various species]
drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J] Gould laid
the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. "We do,
I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and ashamed by
the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these
drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
So Gould blames the textbook writer, while the textbook writer pleads
ignorance. Both of them, however, are quick to criticize "creationists."
"Note that science is a self-correcting process," wrote Futuyma in
response to his Kansas critic, "unlike creationists critiques of science;
evolutionary biologists themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier
literature of their field." And Gould blames creationists for capitalizing
on the work of Richardson and his colleagues by making the "eratz" and
"sensationalist" charge that "a primary pillar of Darwinism, and of
evolution in general, had been revealed as fraudulent after more than a
century" of uncritical acceptance.
But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckeląs embryos in several
editions of his textbook, until a "creationist" criticized him for it.
And it was Gould who (despite having known the truth for over twenty
years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow
biologist) exposed the problem. And all that time, Gould was letting his
colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
equivalent of murder"
Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about
evolution is wrong. Jonathan Wells, pp 108-109.
Nice to know that the religious zeal of fundamental evolutionist
evangelism has misled school children for over 100 years. Yes, science is
a self correcting process, which will some day correct itself to teach
Creation. So they dare say that these fraudulent drawings have endured
more than a century of uncritical acceptance? The truth is, there has
been a century of criticism of Haeckel, quietly slid under the rug, as
have all other numerous exposures of evolutionary deception, fraud, and
outright misleading assertions that contradict the evidence.
How can Futuyma have the gaul to state that "Evolutionary biologists
themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier literature of their field"
How absurd, Haeckeląs drawings were know to be faked 2 centuries ago.
Darwinąs faulty assumption that a single cell animal was a simple cell,
another pillar of evolutionism, has been know to be antiquated 19th
century science for over a century, yet this statement is never corrected.
The religious icon of an ape Śevolvingą into man, is nothing more that a
big leap of faith based upon philosophy and un-scientific dogma devoid of
scientific observation. It is nothing more than a bad religious icon
based upon antiquated 19th Century science, long known to be false and yet
to be corrected even as late as the 21st Century.
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
Paul Weary
"Michael Burton" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-290...@user-2injka7.dialup.mindspring.com...
> The religious icon of an ape Śevolvingą into man, is nothing more that a
> big leap of faith based upon philosophy and un-scientific dogma devoid of
> scientific observation. It is nothing more than a bad religious icon
> based upon antiquated 19th Century science, long known to be false and yet
> to be corrected even as late as the 21st Century.
It is also a straw man, because AIUI evolutionary theory does not say that
apes evolved into man but that modern apes and human beings share a common
ancestor.
The problem with creationism is that at its core all that it has to offer in
response to what you call 'antiquated 19th Century science' is a theory
based on an even more antiquated 10th Century BC cosmology (Assuming that
the writing of Genesis ch 2 dates from about the time of Solomon).
Christian faith is *not* incompatible with a belief in evolution. Neither
(in contradiction to your comment in another thread) is evolutionary theory
necessarily materialistic.
Shalom,
--
Paul Weary
Croydon, UK
Paul Duca
Paul Weary wrote:
> "Michael Burton" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-290...@user-2injka7.dialup.mindspring.com...
>
> > The religious icon of an ape 憩volving1 into man, is nothing more that a
> > big leap of faith based upon philosophy and un-scientific dogma devoid of
> > scientific observation. It is nothing more than a bad religious icon
> > based upon antiquated 19th Century science, long known to be false and yet
> > to be corrected even as late as the 21st Century.
>
> It is also a straw man, because AIUI evolutionary theory does not say that
> apes evolved into man but that modern apes and human beings share a common
> ancestor.
>
> The problem with creationism is that at its core all that it has to offer in
> response to what you call 'antiquated 19th Century science' is a theory
> based on an even more antiquated 10th Century BC cosmology (Assuming that
> the writing of Genesis ch 2 dates from about the time of Solomon).
>
> Christian faith is *not* incompatible with a belief in evolution. Neither
> (in contradiction to your comment in another thread) is evolutionary theory
> necessarily materialistic.
>
> Shalom,
>
Actually, the best argument against creation is Michael Burton
himself...you just have to read anything he writes and you say..."This is the
best God can do?" (of course, Michael says that to all of us as a declarative
statement).
Paul
Michael Burton
much more at stake here than a [unproven] scientific theory-that a link
exists between the material order and the moral orderŠ..this basic
intuition is right. Our origin determines our destiny. It tells us who
we are, why we are here, and how we should order our lives together in
society. Our view of origins shapes our understanding of ethics, law,
education-and yes, even sexuality. Whether we start with the assumption
that we are creatures of a personal God or that we are products of a
mindless process, a whole network of consequences follows, and these
consequences diverge dramatically."
How Now Shall WE Live, Charles Colson, pp 93
When Eve, wholly seduced by the adversary, reached for the fruit of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, her desire was for knowledge to
decide for herself what was right and what was wrong, and become her own
god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary (Sound familiar?).
In creating her own arbitrary standards in rebellion to the Creator of all
things seen and unseen, the confusion of radical moral and ethical
relativism was born, a tradition carried on by the devout and zealous
proselytizers of the religion of evolutionism to become their own gods in
the cathedral of their own minds. In the image of the great deciever,
they avoid the use of the word religion proudly professing knowledge to
decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and to become their
own god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary.
Paul Duca
Michael Burton wrote:
> Regarding evolutionism "Smost people sense instinctively that there is
> much more at stake here than a [unproven] scientific theory-that a link
> exists between the material order and the moral orderS..this basic
> intuition is right. Our origin determines our destiny. It tells us who
> we are, why we are here, and how we should order our lives together in
> society. Our view of origins shapes our understanding of ethics, law,
> education-and yes, even sexuality. Whether we start with the assumption
> that we are creatures of a personal God or that we are products of a
> mindless process, a whole network of consequences follows, and these
> consequences diverge dramatically."
>
> How Now Shall WE Live, Charles Colson, pp 93
>
> When Eve, wholly seduced by the adversary, reached for the fruit of the
> tree of the knowledge of good and evil, her desire was for knowledge to
> decide for herself what was right and what was wrong, and become her own
> god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary (Sound familiar?).
>
> In creating her own arbitrary standards in rebellion to the Creator of all
> things seen and unseen, the confusion of radical moral and ethical
> relativism was born, a tradition carried on by the devout and zealous
> proselytizers of the religion of evolutionism to become their own gods in
> the cathedral of their own minds. In the image of the great deciever,
> they avoid the use of the word religion proudly professing knowledge to
> decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and to become their
> own god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary.
>
> --
If Eve had whined "I'm sorry, I'm sorry" she could have stayed in the Garden, complaining about how everyone and everything else is sinful and
ungodly and not as good as herself (sound familiar? Well, that WAS the basic message Chuck Colson presented this week., as commencement speaker for a
Boston-area Christian college. Just keep screaming JESUS, and people will ignore your crime and sin, and deem you morally superior).
Paul
Ralph Krumdieck
+Regarding evolutionism "Šmost people sense instinctively that there is
+much more at stake here than a [unproven] scientific theory-that a link
+exists between the material order and the moral orderŠ..this basic
+intuition is right. Our origin determines our destiny. It tells us who
+we are, why we are here, and how we should order our lives together in
+society. Our view of origins shapes our understanding of ethics, law,
+education-and yes, even sexuality. Whether we start with the assumption
+that we are creatures of a personal God or that we are products of a
+mindless process, a whole network of consequences follows, and these
+consequences diverge dramatically."
+
+How Now Shall WE Live, Charles Colson, pp 93
OK. I'm glad to know Mr. Colson's opinion. I think he's wrong. That's
another opinion.
+When Eve, wholly seduced by the adversary, reached for the fruit of the
+tree of the knowledge of good and evil, her desire was for knowledge to
+decide for herself what was right and what was wrong, and become her own
+god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary (Sound familiar?).
Interesting. How did you find out what Eve's desire was? Michael, you
are reading a whole lot into very little.
+In creating her own arbitrary standards in rebellion to the Creator of all
+things seen and unseen, the confusion of radical moral and ethical
+relativism was born, a tradition carried on by the devout and zealous
+proselytizers of the religion of evolutionism to become their own gods in
+the cathedral of their own minds. In the image of the great deciever,
+they avoid the use of the word religion proudly professing knowledge to
+decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and to become their
+own god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary.
+--
+May God Bless You,
+Michael
+
Good luck with this, Michael.
ralph
Michael Burton
ralp...@oregon.uoregon.edu wrote:
> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>
> +Regarding evolutionism "Šmost people sense instinctively that there is
> +much more at stake here than a [unproven] scientific theory-that a link
> +exists between the material order and the moral orderŠ..this basic
> +intuition is right. Our origin determines our destiny. It tells us who
> +we are, why we are here, and how we should order our lives together in
> +society. Our view of origins shapes our understanding of ethics, law,
> +education-and yes, even sexuality. Whether we start with the assumption
> +that we are creatures of a personal God or that we are products of a
> +mindless process, a whole network of consequences follows, and these
> +consequences diverge dramatically."
> +
> +How Now Shall WE Live, Charles Colson, pp 93
>
> OK. I'm glad to know Mr. Colson's opinion. I think he's wrong. That's
> another opinion.
He is glad that you know his opinion, and he already knows your opinion.
He thinks your wrong. His opinion is better documented than yours.
Reality supports his opinion.
>
> +When Eve, wholly seduced by the adversary, reached for the fruit of the
> +tree of the knowledge of good and evil, her desire was for knowledge to
> +decide for herself what was right and what was wrong, and become her own
> +god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary (Sound familiar?).
>
> Interesting. How did you find out what Eve's desire was? Michael, you
> are reading a whole lot into very little.
Have you not read Scrupture? You are reading very little from a lot.
>
> +In creating her own arbitrary standards in rebellion to the Creator of all
> +things seen and unseen, the confusion of radical moral and ethical
> +relativism was born, a tradition carried on by the devout and zealous
> +proselytizers of the religion of evolutionism to become their own gods in
> +the cathedral of their own minds. In the image of the great deciever,
> +they avoid the use of the word religion proudly professing knowledge to
> +decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and to become their
> +own god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary.
> +--
> +May God Bless You,
> +Michael
> +
> Good luck with this, Michael.
> ralph
I don't need luck, I have Father's blessings.
Paul Duca
Michael Burton wrote:
> In article <3b165cdb...@news2.uoregon.edu>,
> ralp...@oregon.uoregon.edu wrote:
>
> > mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
> >
> > +Regarding evolutionism "Smost people sense instinctively that there is
> > +much more at stake here than a [unproven] scientific theory-that a link
> > +exists between the material order and the moral orderS..this basic
Now if only your creditors would accept Father's blessings as payment....
Paul
Ralph Krumdieck
+In article <3b165cdb...@news2.uoregon.edu>,
+ralp...@oregon.uoregon.edu wrote:
+
+> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
+>
+> +Regarding evolutionism "Šmost people sense instinctively that there is
+> +much more at stake here than a [unproven] scientific theory-that a link
+> +exists between the material order and the moral orderŠ..this basic
+> +intuition is right. Our origin determines our destiny. It tells us
who
+> +we are, why we are here, and how we should order our lives together in
+> +society. Our view of origins shapes our understanding of ethics, law,
+> +education-and yes, even sexuality. Whether we start with the
assumption
+> +that we are creatures of a personal God or that we are products of a
+> +mindless process, a whole network of consequences follows, and these
+> +consequences diverge dramatically."
+> +
+> +How Now Shall WE Live, Charles Colson, pp 93
+>
+> OK. I'm glad to know Mr. Colson's opinion. I think he's wrong. That's
+> another opinion.
+
+He is glad that you know his opinion, and he already knows your opinion.
+He thinks your wrong. His opinion is better documented than yours.
+Reality supports his opinion.
You are quite mistaken. I have never met or communicated with Mr.
Colson so it's quite impossible for him to already know my opinion.
It is true that Mr. Colson has written more books than I have. He's
written more books than Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, too.
+> +When Eve, wholly seduced by the adversary, reached for the fruit of the
+> +tree of the knowledge of good and evil, her desire was for knowledge to
+> +decide for herself what was right and what was wrong, and become her
own
+> +god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary (Sound familiar?).
+>
+> Interesting. How did you find out what Eve's desire was? Michael, you
+> are reading a whole lot into very little.
+
+Have you not read Scrupture? You are reading very little from a lot.
+
Here's the relevant verse:
6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to
make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also
unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Where in here do we see anything about deciding for herself what is
right and what is wrong and becoming her own god? It says "the
tree was good for food" (presumably meaning the *fruit* of the tree
was good for food, though how she knows, assuming she's never
tasted it, is not explained), that it was "pleasant to the eye" (meaning
God chose to make the forbidden tree, or its fruit, or both, beautiful,
no explanation why) and that it was "a tree to be desired to make
one wise". I'm no Hebrew scholar. If you can prove that the Hebrew
word, here translated as "wise", means wanting to decide for
yourself what is right and what is wrong and becoming your own
god, then you have a case.
As an aside, it's interesting that Eve could even have a desire
to decide for herself what's right and what's wrong. She was
created, like Adam, without sin. She and Adam had no
knowledge of good and evil. They were naked but not
ashamed. Right? So where comes this knowledge that
there even *is* a right and a wrong? Isn't this the knowledge
the Bible says they acquired from eating the forbidden fruit?
7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were
naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and
made themselves aprons.
Interesting also that bare breasts do not come under the
heading of "naked", since they only made "aprons".
ralph
+>
+> +In creating her own arbitrary standards in rebellion to the Creator of
all
+> +things seen and unseen, the confusion of radical moral and ethical
+> +relativism was born, a tradition carried on by the devout and zealous
+> +proselytizers of the religion of evolutionism to become their own gods
in
+> +the cathedral of their own minds. In the image of the great deciever,
+> +they avoid the use of the word religion proudly professing knowledge to
+> +decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and to become
their
+> +own god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary.
+> +--
+> +May God Bless You,
+> +Michael
+> +
+> Good luck with this, Michael.
+> ralph
+
+I don't need luck, I have Father's blessings.
+
Me too, but I won't turn down the luck. All things
come from God, right?
Michael Burton
ralp...@oregon.uoregon.edu wrote:
Your opinion is the subject of his book, sounding as a disciple of the
radical religious left, you underestimate the influence of those clueless
individuals whose religious opinions seem to be mimiced without
understanding.
> It is true that Mr. Colson has written more books than I have. He's
> written more books than Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, too.
I have only read their gospels, they wrote other works as well, which ones
have you read?
>
> +> +When Eve, wholly seduced by the adversary, reached for the fruit of the
> +> +tree of the knowledge of good and evil, her desire was for knowledge to
> +> +decide for herself what was right and what was wrong, and become her
> own
> +> +god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary (Sound familiar?).
> +>
> +> Interesting. How did you find out what Eve's desire was? Michael, you
> +> are reading a whole lot into very little.
> +
> +Have you not read Scrupture? You are reading very little from a lot.
> +
> Here's the relevant verse:
> 6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
> pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to
> make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also
> unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Convenient, you failed to mention the relevant verse, it preceeds the
verse you quoted, in the pleasant sounding but seductive words of the
great deciever, himself.
>
> Where in here do we see anything about deciding for herself what is
> right and what is wrong and becoming her own god? It says "the
> tree was good for food" (presumably meaning the *fruit* of the tree
> was good for food, though how she knows, assuming she's never
> tasted it, is not explained),
Have you not read Scripture, man does not life by bread alone.
that it was "pleasant to the eye" (meaning
> God chose to make the forbidden tree, or its fruit, or both, beautiful,
> no explanation why)
Have you not read Scripture, all Creation was good.
and that it was "a tree to be desired to make
> one wise". I'm no Hebrew scholar. If you can prove that the Hebrew
> word, here translated as "wise", means wanting to decide for
> yourself what is right and what is wrong and becoming your own
> god, then you have a case.
It is obvious that you are not a Hebrew scholar.
>
> As an aside, it's interesting that Eve could even have a desire
> to decide for herself what's right and what's wrong. She was
> created, like Adam, without sin. She and Adam had no
> knowledge of good and evil. They were naked but not
> ashamed. Right?
Have you not read Scripture, they were clothed with the righteousness of God.
So where comes this knowledge that
> there even *is* a right and a wrong?
Have you not read Scripture, He has written His laws upon the heart.
Isn't this the knowledge
> the Bible says they acquired from eating the forbidden fruit?
Have you not read Scripture? The Law is irrelevant when one lives without
breaking it. One is free of the Law when one is producing the fruits of
the Spirit, for there is no Law against any of the fruits of the Spirit.
But if one produces the fruits of the flesh, without repentance and a
means of atonement, one is under the ordinaces of the Law.
>
> 7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were
> naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and
> made themselves aprons.
>
> Interesting also that bare breasts do not come under the
> heading of "naked", since they only made "aprons".
> ralph
Not really all that interesting, the aprons attempted to cover the part of
the body, which was not their mouth, associated with the sin by flawed
human wisdom. Their covering, however, was rejected by God, who in His
Loving Grace, removed it and provided a more suitable covering in the
absence of His righteousness.
> +>
> +> +In creating her own arbitrary standards in rebellion to the Creator of
> all
> +> +things seen and unseen, the confusion of radical moral and ethical
> +> +relativism was born, a tradition carried on by the devout and zealous
> +> +proselytizers of the religion of evolutionism to become their own gods
> in
> +> +the cathedral of their own minds. In the image of the great deciever,
> +> +they avoid the use of the word religion proudly professing knowledge to
> +> +decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and to become
> their
> +> +own god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary.
> +> +--
> +> +May God Bless You,
> +> +Michael
> +> +
> +> Good luck with this, Michael.
> +> ralph
> +
> +I don't need luck, I have Father's blessings.
> +
> Me too, but I won't turn down the luck. All things
> come from God, right?
Sometimes in a round about way, but the direct route is better. Luck
comes from the Latin for Lucifer. God did create Lucifer, but in his
rebellion to his Father, the reflection of God's glory by Lucifer is pale
indeed, and not a reflection to be envied as it comes with consequences
not so enviable. It is better to reflect the Glory of God in the Image of
His Son rather than the pale light of luck.
Paul Weary
> Luck
> comes from the Latin for Lucifer. God did create Lucifer, but in his
> rebellion to his Father, the reflection of God's glory by Lucifer is pale
> indeed, and not a reflection to be envied as it comes with consequences
> not so enviable. It is better to reflect the Glory of God in the Image of
> His Son rather than the pale light of luck.
Hmm. Interesting bit of 'folk etymology' but it would be interesting to know
your source. According to my Oxford dictionary, the English word 'luck'
derives from the middle Low German Word 'geluke'. 'Lucifer' is a Latin word
meaning 'light-bringer'.
Marlene Capps
> Regarding evolutionism "Smost people sense instinctively that there is
> much more at stake here than a [unproven] scientific theory-that a link
> intuition is right. Our origin determines our destiny. It tells us who
> we are, why we are here, and how we should order our lives together in
> society. Our view of origins shapes our understanding of ethics, law,
> education-and yes, even sexuality. Whether we start with the assumption
> that we are creatures of a personal God or that we are products of a
> mindless process, a whole network of consequences follows, and these
> consequences diverge dramatically."
>
>
> How Now Shall WE Live, Charles Colson, pp 93
>
> When Eve, wholly seduced by the adversary, reached for the fruit of the
> tree of the knowledge of good and evil, her desire was for knowledge to
> decide for herself what was right and what was wrong, and become her own
> god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary (Sound familiar?).
>
> In creating her own arbitrary standards in rebellion to the Creator of all
> things seen and unseen, the confusion of radical moral and ethical
> relativism was born, a tradition carried on by the devout and zealous
> proselytizers of the religion of evolutionism to become their own gods in
> the cathedral of their own minds. In the image of the great deciever,
> they avoid the use of the word religion proudly professing knowledge to
> decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and to become their
> own god, but lacking wisdom, the results are legendary.
>
> --
> May God Bless You,
> Michael
>
The whole book is symbolic and written in figures of speech, a language all
its own. Not many know how to speak the language therefore literalism gives
little definition and a zillion meanings. Just see the flux of all the many
denominations branched off from
one interpretation to another. This is known as the mindless process seeing
only the reflection of "producing" as sex and sin. Our origin created from
two people having sex, planting a sperm seed and walla you are here as a
chosen one or a misfit is usually the definition of destiny of mass mind. .
That would make us products of a mindless process, but who is mindless? Who
can only think in terms that living is a process of sex? But what about the
process of knowledge and its producing faculties of mind.
Eve was not seduced by a snake and forced to eat from the tree of good and
evil. . She was told that if you eat from this tree you will be as a god.
God knowing both sides of good and evil knew that if Eve became a "thinker"
she would have to think her way through the web of evil before she could
find the good of God. No wisdom is born without having to know BOTH sides.
Getting lost in the realm of not knowing the way of good is but yet another
way to define learning the hard way. "On your belly you shall go"
Slithering away from the good of God so that learning could take place. At
the end of anything is the learning. Once you've been seduced by ignorance
you don't reach for it again. You reach a new level of understanding and go
on to reach higher in the tree for higher learning. Is this for the
benefit of God? Perhaps he made us to think and through the power of thought
we are empowered to reach for good but often eat the fruit that says "if you
do that then you'll have to learn the hard way."
>
God Blesses,
Marlene
The Count
2 count tings.
Michael Burton wrote:
>
> In article <3b17a6d1...@news2.uoregon.edu>,
> ralp...@oregon.uoregon.edu wrote:
...
> Have you not read Scripture, they were clothed with the righteousness of God.
>
> So where comes this knowledge that
> > there even *is* a right and a wrong?
...
i think he asked a pertinent question. there is a paradox here.
1. there was in fact right/wrong.
2. Eve and Adam did not know what was right/wrong.
3. the tree contained fruit that when eaten, would lead them
to the knowledge of right/wrong.
4. and yet God forbade them to eat that fruit.
well, very simple. Because God knows right/wrong (*), they only needed
to know God and obey God all time, and they will effectively know
right/wrong and do the right thing all the time! so there's no need
to eat the fruit of that tree!!! (^)
the paradox melts down like wax!
The Count has spoken. * poof * (i'm off this thread)
--
The Count, Singapore
(*) in fact: God defines right/wrong. right simply means being in-line
with God's character and commands, wrong means the opposite.
(^) i guess Adam and Eve probably wanted to be independent from God.
Paul Duca
Ralph Krumdieck wrote:
> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>
> +In article <3b165cdb...@news2.uoregon.edu>,
> +ralp...@oregon.uoregon.edu wrote:
> +
> +> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
> +>
> +> +Regarding evolutionism "Smost people sense instinctively that there is
> +> +much more at stake here than a [unproven] scientific theory-that a link
> +> +exists between the material order and the moral orderS..this basic
Supposedly, but Michael Burton illustrates that it often is a long,
long, LONG journey from God to you.
Paul
Michael Burton
WashingtonŠfired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for allying itself
with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link, Icons of Evolution, Science of Myth? Why
much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Jonathan Well, pp125
Michael Burton
much time talking about or worrying about through the years of the
[cultural and sexual] revolution. But we will say this for sin; it at
least offered a frame of reference for personal behaviour. When the frame
was dismantled, guilt wasnąt the only thing that fell away: we also lost
the guidewire of personal responsibilityŠ.Everyone was left on hisŠown.
It now appears that many wrecked people could have used a roadmap.
New York Times, The Trivialization of God, Mc Cullough, 90
Paul Duca
Michael Burton wrote:
> Sin isn1t something that many people, including most churches, have spent
> much time talking about or worrying about through the years of the
> [cultural and sexual] revolution. But we will say this for sin; it at
> least offered a frame of reference for personal behaviour. When the frame
> was dismantled, guilt wasn1t the only thing that fell away: we also lost
> the guidewire of personal responsibilityS.Everyone was left on hisSown.
> It now appears that many wrecked people could have used a roadmap.
>
> New York Times, The Trivialization of God, Mc Cullough, 90
>
> --
> May God Bless You,
> Michael
>
> Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
Whoop-di-s***---all YOUR roadmap leads to is a miserable eternity where the ONLY happiness is smugly looking down upon everyone not as good as
you are...including your wife and kids.
Paul
Paul Duca
makeup, the boys to toss around balls and look for people not like themselves to persecute?
Paul
Michael Burton wrote:
> Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
> WashingtonSfired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
Michael Burton
members of the Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court tradition which
opined the flawed Dredd Scott Opinion) believe that there is a huge wall
of separation of church and state in the Constitution for the united
States of America. There is no wall, hugh nor small. No mention of
separation. No mention of the church. No mention of the state.
Taking out the words that actually do not appear in the Constitution, from
* a huge wall of separation of church and state* we are left with * a ---
----- of ------- of ------- and ------*. I suppose one could argue that
* a --- ----- of ------- of ------- and ------*. Appears in the
Constitution, however, it has little meaning.
Separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution.
The phrase first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802
(Jefferson零 letter is not the Constitution) to a Baptist pastor in
Connecticut. Atheists almost always omit the last part of the letter that
shows Jefferson零 intent.
Here is the context of that letter: "The First Amendment has erected a
wall of separation between church and state. That wall is a one
dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church, but it
makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government"
What Jefferson is saying is that the Supreme Court, in removing such as
the 10 commandments from public areas, is itself violating the
establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and the limits imposed upon the
Supreme Court by the Constitution. It has exceeded its Constitutional
authority. And in so doing, is establishing atheistic humanism as the de
facto state religion in direct contradiction to the Jeffersonian concept
of separation of church and state and the Constitutional concept in the
establishment clause. They are so wrong..
Seems like the dissenting opinion of Justice Renquist is quite on target
in a recent opinion in which he states that the concept of separation of
church and state as currently assumed is historically inaccurate and
misleading and we would be well advised to vacate the legalistic concept
entirely.
For more information, contact Wallbuilders 800/873-2845 www.wallbuilders.com
Gennem
>
> Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
> WashingtonŠfired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
> National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for allying itself
> with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
> biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
> first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
> of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
>
> Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link, Icons of Evolution, Science of Myth? Why
> much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Jonathan Well, pp125
Doesn't the Smithsonian have 30,000 humans skulls in its basement as a
result of a search for evidence for evolution theory? (Kent Hovind
http://www.drdino.com)
Isn't there supposed to be an atheist-liberal conspiracy to remove
dissenters from academia? (insert Young Earth nut of choice)
We should allow Nat. Geo to respond.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0425_featherdino.html
--
***************************************************************************
"Did you know that the black suited organization that attacked the Koresh
cult was a United Nations task force?"
Kent Hovind - Creation Science [sic] Evangelist
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
***************************************************************************
Paul Weary
Michael,
May I make a request not to send these quotations, which are obscure and
often taken out of context, to alt.religion.christian.methodist? I can't see
how it is relevant to a specifically denominational group and I have yet to
see any replies originating from a.r.c.m, with the exception of myself.
> Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
> WashingtonŠfired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
> National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for allying itself
> with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
> biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
> first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
> of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
So we have a debate between Olson and Raven about the evolution of birds.
Although you publish this to support your anti-evolutionary views, I suspect
that both Olson and Raven are evolutionists and the debate is whether birds
originated from dinosaurs or from another type of reptile. In which case
'grander scientific hoax' refers to the theory of dinosaurian origins,
rather than the theory of evolution.
But without background research, I'm guessing, because, as I said, you have
taken this out of context.
What is the point?
Shalom,
--
Paul Weary
Croydon, UK
P.S. If I remember correctly there is an 'origins' group on the Usenet. Why
not cross post there and see what they make of your arguments?
Paul Duca
the ONLY acceptable kind. Hey, if it hasn't made you any money by now, making it the law of the land won't.
Paul
Michael Burton
<REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
> > WashingtonŠfired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
> > National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for allying itself
> > with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
> > biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> > Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
> > first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
> > of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
> >
> > Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link, Icons of Evolution, Science of Myth? Why
> > much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Jonathan Well, pp125
>
> Doesn't the Smithsonian have 30,000 humans skulls in its basement as a
> result of a search for evidence for evolution theory? (Kent Hovind
> http://www.drdino.com)
They probably have, but aren't politically incorrect enough to talk about it.
>
> Isn't there supposed to be an atheist-liberal conspiracy to remove
> dissenters from academia?
Fortunately, the radical left wing religous movement is dying out because
of bankrupt morality and ethics.
>
> We should allow Nat. Geo to respond.
It is painful for the radical religious left to respond to the
paleontological equivalent of cold fusion, so what do they say?
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0425_featherdino.html
In an open letter he sent in 1999 to National Geographic's Committee
for Research and Exploration, which has funded
some of the recent dinosaur fossil
discoveries, Olson called the theory of feathered dinosaurs
the "paleontological equivalent of cold
fusion."
He issued the highly critical letter after National Geographic
magazine published a story in November 1999
reporting on several feathered dinosaur
specimens that scientists claimed were "a missing link" between
terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could
fly. One of the specimens from China was later
found to be a composite, which prompted an internal investigation of
the incident.
[In other words, National Geographic committed accessory to an
evolutionary fraud. *later found to be a composite, which prompted an
internal investigation of the incident* means they were sucked in, but
don't want you to know the truth that the rapidly growing evidence for the
biased and unsupported assumption is losing ground, not going
forward.]
Among his comments, Olson said that "none of the structures illustrated
in [the] article that are claimed to be
feathers have actually been proven to be
feathers."
[In other words, National Geographic was wrong, but there will be no
comment nor correction]
Whether the fossilized dinosaur now on display in New York represents a
new species is not yet clear. Clark speculates
that it may belong to one of several theropod
species that have emerged in recent years.
[Whether or notŠ.speculates , more evolutionary imagry devoid of
facts]
The paper in Nature describes the embedded creature as having matted
tufts of feather-like filaments on nearly
every part of its body. Downy fibers sprout
from its head and tail; its arms bear branched structures that resemble
the barbed feathers of modern birds.
[Feather like filaments are not feathers]
While the new dinosaur specimen is clearly exciting for the level of
detail it provides, Clark said the discovery
should be viewed in the context of a steadily
growing body of evidence that is rapidly advancing scientific knowledge
about dinosaur "integuments," or bodily
coverings.
[Since no evidence has been provided here, where is the steadily growing
body of evidence not discussed here coming from?]
Michael Burton
"You shouldn't force your morality on me" shrieks the atheist.
"Why not?" calmly responds the Christian.
"Because I don't believe in forcing morality." self righteouesly responds
the atheist.
"If you don't beleive in it, then by all means, don't do it. Especially
don't force that moral view of yours on me."
==========
"You shouldn't push your morality on me".
"I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I
have no right to an opinion?"
"You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone."
"Is that your opinion?"
"Yes"
"Then why are you forcing it on me?"
"But you're saying that only your view is right."
"Am I wrong?"
"Yes"
"Is that your view?"
"Yes"
"Then you're saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you
objected to me saying, isn't it?"
============
"Don't push your morality on me."
"Why, Don't you believe in morality?"
"Sure, but I believe in my morality, not yours."
?Wll then, how do you know what's moral?"
"I think people should decide individually."
"That's exactly what I'm doing. And I'm deciding you're immoral. What's
the problem? LIve and let live is your value, not mine."
=======
"You shouldn't push your morality on me"
"Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like
you're telling me I'm wrong."
"You are."
"Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn't apply to
other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your
moral view to me. Why are you forcing your morality on me?"
=====
Bill was a friendly, tolerant sort, willing to talk with me about
Christianity until the question of homosexuality came up. My apparent
lack of tolerance made him uncomfortable, and he said so.
"That's what bugs me about Christians," he said, "You seem nice at first,
but then you start getting judgemental."
"What's wrong with that?" I said......
"It's not right to judge other people."
"If it's wrong to judge other people, Bill, then why are you judging me?"
Relativism, Feet Frimly Planted in Mid Air, Bechkwigh and Koukl, Baker
Books, 1998, pp145
Gennem
>
> In article <3B1BB388...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Burton wrote:
[snip]
> > Doesn't the Smithsonian have 30,000 humans skulls in its basement as a
> > result of a search for evidence for evolution theory? (Kent Hovind
> > http://www.drdino.com)
>
> They probably have, but aren't politically incorrect enough to talk about it.
In short, you have no evidence but you will make unsubstantiated
accusations just the same. Nice, not :(
> >
> > Isn't there supposed to be an atheist-liberal conspiracy to remove
> > dissenters from academia?
>
> Fortunately, the radical left wing religous movement is dying out because
> of bankrupt morality and ethics.
Im talking about academia not the church.
>
> >
> > We should allow Nat. Geo to respond.
>
> It is painful for the radical religious left to respond to the
> paleontological equivalent of cold fusion, so what do they say?
>
> >
> > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0425_featherdino.html
>
> In an open letter he sent in 1999 to National Geographic's Committee
> for Research and Exploration, which has funded
> some of the recent dinosaur fossil
> discoveries, Olson called the theory of feathered dinosaurs
> the "paleontological equivalent of cold
> fusion."
>
> He issued the highly critical letter after National Geographic
> magazine published a story in November 1999
> reporting on several feathered dinosaur
> specimens that scientists claimed were "a missing link" between
> terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could
> fly. One of the specimens from China was later
> found to be a composite, which prompted an internal investigation of
> the incident.
>
> [In other words, National Geographic committed accessory to an
> evolutionary fraud. *later found to be a composite, which prompted an
> internal investigation of the incident* means they were sucked in, but
> don't want you to know the truth that the rapidly growing evidence for the
> biased and unsupported assumption is losing ground, not going
> forward.]
So not only to that not want the world to know the truth but they published
a retraction in the following issue plus also published the details of the
internal investigation (which from memory contained some not so flattering
conclusions about how some staff executed their jobs). Beware the
conspiracy!
[snip]
> [Since no evidence has been provided here, where is the steadily growing
> body of evidence not discussed here coming from?]
Ive got no idea, apparently you have insight to all the conspiracies and
hidden evidence.
Michael Burton
<REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B1BB388...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Burton wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Doesn't the Smithsonian have 30,000 humans skulls in its basement as a
> > > result of a search for evidence for evolution theory? (Kent Hovind
> > > http://www.drdino.com)
> >
> > They probably have, but aren't politically incorrect enough to talk
about it.
>
> In short, you have no evidence but you will make unsubstantiated
> accusations just the same. Nice, not :(
There is amply evidence of the skulls in the basement of the Smithsonian,
so the the accusation, made by you, not me, is well substantiated. My
copies of Smithsonian have never mentioned them, however.
In short, you have no evidence to the contrary but will make
unsubstantiated accusations just the same. Nice, not.
>
> > >
> > > Isn't there supposed to be an atheist-liberal conspiracy to remove
> > > dissenters from academia?
> >
> > Fortunately, the radical left wing religous movement is dying out because
> > of bankrupt morality and ethics.
>
> Im talking about academia not the church.
So was I.
Unfortunately, the original article with the fraud received (and will
continue to do so) wide publication and reference. The truth of the fraud
is conveniently buried in an internal investigation that will not be
published widely at all; hence the conspiracy.
Are you prejudiced and bigoted against anyone who uses the term
conspiracy? If so, you were the one who used the word first, apparently in
a flawed attempt of ad hominem attack against me.
>
> [snip]
>
> > [Since no evidence has been provided here, where is the steadily growing
> > body of evidence not discussed here coming from?]
>
> Ive got no idea, apparently you have insight to all the conspiracies and
> hidden evidence.
More anti-conspiracy bigotry?
Gennem
>
> In article <3B1DA60F...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Burton wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B1BB388...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Doesn't the Smithsonian have 30,000 humans skulls in its basement as a
> > > > result of a search for evidence for evolution theory? (Kent Hovind
> > > > http://www.drdino.com)
> > >
> > > They probably have, but aren't politically incorrect enough to talk
> about it.
> >
> > In short, you have no evidence but you will make unsubstantiated
> > accusations just the same. Nice, not :(
>
> There is amply evidence of the skulls in the basement of the Smithsonian,
> so the the accusation, made by you, not me, is well substantiated. My
> copies of Smithsonian have never mentioned them, however.
There is ample evidence yet your sources contain no evidence. That is
totally daft.
>
> In short, you have no evidence to the contrary but will make
> unsubstantiated accusations just the same. Nice, not.
So, proving negatives is how Creation Science is done now. I knew you guys
were backwards about some things but proving negatives has got to be the
last straw.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Isn't there supposed to be an atheist-liberal conspiracy to remove
> > > > dissenters from academia?
> > >
> > > Fortunately, the radical left wing religous movement is dying out because
> > > of bankrupt morality and ethics.
> >
> > Im talking about academia not the church.
>
> So was I.
Okay, do you have some statistics to back up that claim?
[snip]
> > > [In other words, National Geographic committed accessory to an
> > > evolutionary fraud. *later found to be a composite, which prompted an
> > > internal investigation of the incident* means they were sucked in, but
> > > don't want you to know the truth that the rapidly growing evidence for the
> > > biased and unsupported assumption is losing ground, not going
> > > forward.]
> >
> > So not only to that not want the world to know the truth but they published
> > a retraction in the following issue plus also published the details of the
> > internal investigation (which from memory contained some not so flattering
> > conclusions about how some staff executed their jobs). Beware the
> > conspiracy!
>
> Unfortunately, the original article with the fraud received (and will
> continue to do so) wide publication and reference. The truth of the fraud
> is conveniently buried in an internal investigation that will not be
> published widely at all; hence the conspiracy.
Except of course for the retraction in the very next edition.
On the issue of the article being used as a reference could you cite any
sources which have done so?
>
> Are you prejudiced and bigoted against anyone who uses the term
> conspiracy? If so, you were the one who used the word first, apparently in
> a flawed attempt of ad hominem attack against me.
If I said you argument was bogus simply because you believed in
conspiracies then that would be an ad hom. However, my original argument
attacked your lack of evidence and your outlandish conclusions as being in
error. I was attacking the argument not the person, hence no ad. hom.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > [Since no evidence has been provided here, where is the steadily growing
> > > body of evidence not discussed here coming from?]
> >
> > Ive got no idea, apparently you have insight to all the conspiracies and
> > hidden evidence.
>
> More anti-conspiracy bigotry?
I dont particularly like unsubstantiated claims of conspiracies, be they
UFO cover ups, New World Order, or atheist evolution religious cover ups.
--
******************************************************************
Young Earth Idiot of the Moment
"There are a lot of "coincidences" which support life on earth,
such as the sun's surface being 6,000 degrees which produces
green light. This just happens to be the most ideal spectrum of
light for photosynthesis. - http://jfamilyenterprises.com/bush/page4.html
*****************************************************************
Michael Burton
<REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B1DA60F...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3B1BB388...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Doesn't the Smithsonian have 30,000 humans skulls in its basement as a
> > > > > result of a search for evidence for evolution theory? (Kent Hovind
> > > > > http://www.drdino.com)
> > > >
> > > > They probably have, but aren't politically incorrect enough to talk
> > about it.
> > >
> > > In short, you have no evidence but you will make unsubstantiated
> > > accusations just the same. Nice, not :(
> >
> > There is amply evidence of the skulls in the basement of the Smithsonian,
> > so the the accusation, made by you, not me, is well substantiated. My
> > copies of Smithsonian have never mentioned them, however.
>
> There is ample evidence yet your sources contain no evidence. That is
> totally daft.
The statement is daft, a misquoting of what I said, so I am not sure what
you are saying.
>
> >
> > In short, you have no evidence to the contrary but will make
> > unsubstantiated accusations just the same. Nice, not.
>
> So, proving negatives is how Creation Science is done now. I knew you guys
> were backwards about some things but proving negatives has got to be the
> last straw.
Since the fossil record affirms that Darwinism is not workable, the
backward position would be continue to believe in Darwinism by faith in
miracles alone.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't there supposed to be an atheist-liberal conspiracy to remove
> > > > > dissenters from academia?
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately, the radical left wing religous movement is dying out
because
> > > > of bankrupt morality and ethics.
> > >
> > > Im talking about academia not the church.
> >
> > So was I.
>
> Okay, do you have some statistics to back up that claim?
You don't need statistics, the moral and ethical bankruptsy of
evolutionary relativism is self evident.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > > > [In other words, National Geographic committed accessory to an
> > > > evolutionary fraud. *later found to be a composite, which prompted an
> > > > internal investigation of the incident* means they were sucked in, but
> > > > don't want you to know the truth that the rapidly growing evidence
for the
> > > > biased and unsupported assumption is losing ground, not going
> > > > forward.]
> > >
> > > So not only to that not want the world to know the truth but they
published
> > > a retraction in the following issue plus also published the details of the
> > > internal investigation (which from memory contained some not so flattering
> > > conclusions about how some staff executed their jobs). Beware the
> > > conspiracy!
> >
> > Unfortunately, the original article with the fraud received (and will
> > continue to do so) wide publication and reference. The truth of the fraud
> > is conveniently buried in an internal investigation that will not be
> > published widely at all; hence the conspiracy.
>
> Except of course for the retraction in the very next edition.
> On the issue of the article being used as a reference could you cite any
> sources which have done so?
The evolutionary fraud of the peppered moths is still being quoted as one
of the greatest proofs of evolution in most current textbooks and such a
statement has been know to be fradulent for many years. Many textbooks
still contain Haeckel's embryo drawings, known frauds for over 100 years.
The Miller -Urey experiement is still touted as convincing proof (which it
is of intelligent design, but not of natural selection evolution),
Archaeopteryx has been dethroned as a missing link by evolutionary
cladists, but textbooks still prominently display him since there are no
missing links, Darwin's finches are still touted, which have nothing to do
to support evolution, Four Winged Fruit Flys are still used to give a last
breat to the mutated monster theory, which the four winged fruit fly is
proof that the hypothesis is rediculus. Even the untimate evolutionary
icon, the ape to human drawings which are quite fanciful, and completely
without scientific basis. Why would you think that another misleading
example would be honestly treated?
>
>
> >
> > Are you prejudiced and bigoted against anyone who uses the term
> > conspiracy? If so, you were the one who used the word first, apparently in
> > a flawed attempt of ad hominem attack against me.
>
> If I said you argument was bogus simply because you believed in
> conspiracies then that would be an ad hom. However, my original argument
> attacked your lack of evidence and your outlandish conclusions as being in
> error. I was attacking the argument not the person, hence no ad. hom.
You should reread your comment again. I never mentioned conspiracy, and
the use of the phrase follows the ad hominem attack method used by
socalists, to the tee.
>
>
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > [Since no evidence has been provided here, where is the steadily growing
> > > > body of evidence not discussed here coming from?]
> > >
> > > Ive got no idea, apparently you have insight to all the conspiracies and
> > > hidden evidence.
> >
> > More anti-conspiracy bigotry?
>
> I dont particularly like unsubstantiated claims of conspiracies, be they
> UFO cover ups, New World Order, or atheist evolution religious cover ups.
Neither do I, perhaps you should read more.
Gennem
>
> In article <3B21BC6A...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Burton wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B1DA60F...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <3B1BB388...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > >
[snip]
>
> >
> > >
> > > In short, you have no evidence to the contrary but will make
> > > unsubstantiated accusations just the same. Nice, not.
> >
> > So, proving negatives is how Creation Science is done now. I knew you guys
> > were backwards about some things but proving negatives has got to be the
> > last straw.
>
> Since the fossil record affirms that Darwinism is not workable, the
> backward position would be continue to believe in Darwinism by faith in
> miracles alone.
Firstly, you haven't defended your expectation that a negative needs to be
proved
Secondly, what exactly about the fossil record would you like to discuss?
[snip]
> > > > > Fortunately, the radical left wing religous movement is dying out
> because
> > > > > of bankrupt morality and ethics.
> > > >
> > > > Im talking about academia not the church.
> > >
> > > So was I.
> >
> > Okay, do you have some statistics to back up that claim?
>
> You don't need statistics, the moral and ethical bankruptsy of
> evolutionary relativism is self evident.
Its "self evident" yet you have no data to back up your position? ..... ok
[snip]
> > > Unfortunately, the original article with the fraud received (and will
> > > continue to do so) wide publication and reference. The truth of the fraud
> > > is conveniently buried in an internal investigation that will not be
> > > published widely at all; hence the conspiracy.
> >
> > Except of course for the retraction in the very next edition.
> > On the issue of the article being used as a reference could you cite any
> > sources which have done so?
I note that you failed to support your claim that the original Nat. Geo
article has "received wide publication and reference".
It seems a little bit of an explanation about what a science publication is
may be in order. National Geographic, whilst having established quite a
reputation, is not a formal peer reviewed science publication. NG is a
popular science news magazine, intended to read by the general public. NG
is no more or less infallible than Time or the Wall Street Journal.
So instead of supporting your position you resort to red herrings. That's
okay, I can respond to those as well.
>
> The evolutionary fraud of the peppered moths is still being quoted as one
> of the greatest proofs of evolution in most current textbooks and such a
> statement has been know to be fradulent for many years.
Care to elaborate?
> Many textbooks
> still contain Haeckel's embryo drawings, known frauds for over 100 years.
Are the drawings there with text supporting recapitulation or are the
drawings used to simply to illustrate what Haeckel idea was? Or are the
drawings used by lazy publishers to support embryo homology?
> The Miller -Urey experiement is still touted as convincing proof
Convincing proof of what? That amino acids are not incapable of being
produced? You will have to elaborate a little more about your objections.
[snip]
> Archaeopteryx has been dethroned as a missing link by evolutionary
> cladists,
Really? Care to cite a source?
> but textbooks still prominently display him since there are no
> missing links,
Missing avian links or missing links in general?
This is just a summary -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> Darwin's finches are still touted, which have nothing to do
> to support evolution,
Except for how natural selection works.
> Four Winged Fruit Flys are still used to give a last
> breat to the mutated monster theory, which the four winged fruit fly is
> proof that the hypothesis is rediculus.
Never seen that example of a mutation used. However, what's easier to
understand for a junior high student - a physical change due to a mutation?
- or text describing the error in replication of gene 56h9 on Chromosome 2?
> Even the untimate evolutionary
> icon, the ape to human drawings which are quite fanciful, and completely
> without scientific basis.
Except for this data (of course you could go to a decent library and check
all of this in more detail)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
> Why would you think that another misleading
> example would be honestly treated?
Because you made a claim, and beautifully failed to support it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Are you prejudiced and bigoted against anyone who uses the term
> > > conspiracy? If so, you were the one who used the word first, apparently in
> > > a flawed attempt of ad hominem attack against me.
> >
> > If I said you argument was bogus simply because you believed in
> > conspiracies then that would be an ad hom. However, my original argument
> > attacked your lack of evidence and your outlandish conclusions as being in
> > error. I was attacking the argument not the person, hence no ad. hom.
>
> You should reread your comment again. I never mentioned conspiracy, and
> the use of the phrase follows the ad hominem attack method used by
> socalists, to the tee.
Socialist? I must remember you said that when next my dividend cheques come
in the mail. Very funny!
Also you did directly imply a conspiracy. You even chided me for being
"bigoted against anyone who uses the term conspiracy". It is irrelevant
whether I used the word first (in a sarcastic form) because it has been
you, Michael, who has been accusing people of being part of this social
faction or that group. These groupings are of course at war with your
position (for what reason is never explained. Nor is the evidence of any
collaboration given).
That is a habit of yours which is becoming a little annoying. Don't make a
claim unless you are prepared to back it up with evidence. Dont try and
weasel away when you are caught making unsubstantiated claims. Be a man
about it.
[snip]
--
******************************************************************
Young Earth Idiot of the Moment
"There are a lot of "coincidences" which support life on earth,
such as the sun's surface being 6,000 degrees which produces
green light. This just happens to be the most ideal spectrum of
light for photosynthesis. - http://jfamilyenterprises.com/bush/page4.html
*****************************************************************
Michael Burton
<REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B21BC6A...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3B1DA60F...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <3B1BB388...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > > > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > > >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In short, you have no evidence to the contrary but will make
> > > > unsubstantiated accusations just the same. Nice, not.
> > >
> > > So, proving negatives is how Creation Science is done now. I knew you guys
> > > were backwards about some things but proving negatives has got to be the
> > > last straw.
> >
> > Since the fossil record affirms that Darwinism is not workable, the
> > backward position would be continue to believe in Darwinism by faith in
> > miracles alone.
>
> Firstly, you haven't defended your expectation that a negative needs to be
> proved
I am not sure that a negative position is mine to defend. Can you please
provide a question in more suscint format?
> Secondly, what exactly about the fossil record would you like to discuss?
1. It shows a burst of new species all at once, which is completely
contrary to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism expectation, and completely
supportive of the Creation hypothesis. It also agrees with Scripture.
2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no establishment
of new species over time. This affirms the expectations of Creation
hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the increasing
complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
The fossil record, is a major reason that only Punctuated Equilibrium
remains as a viable evolution theory, but there are really few differences
between Punctuated Equilibrium and Creation, and depending upon the
definations used, actually no difference.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > > > > > Fortunately, the radical left wing religous movement is dying out
> > because
> > > > > > of bankrupt morality and ethics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Im talking about academia not the church.
> > > >
> > > > So was I.
> > >
> > > Okay, do you have some statistics to back up that claim?
> >
> > You don't need statistics, the moral and ethical bankruptsy of
> > evolutionary relativism is self evident.
>
> Its "self evident" yet you have no data to back up your position? ..... ok
Situational ethics and relative morality is in effect, no morality at all,
or a system of immorality, for anything must be considered moral and
ethical. That does not need data, it is self evident, as are the
outworkings of the flawed moral system best characterized by president
Clinton's *It depends on what the meaning of the word is is*. It does not
depend on what the meaning of the word is is, it depends upon being
honest, moral, and ethical whatever the word is is.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > Unfortunately, the original article with the fraud received (and will
> > > > continue to do so) wide publication and reference. The truth of
the fraud
> > > > is conveniently buried in an internal investigation that will not be
> > > > published widely at all; hence the conspiracy.
> > >
> > > Except of course for the retraction in the very next edition.
> > > On the issue of the article being used as a reference could you cite any
> > > sources which have done so?
>
> I note that you failed to support your claim that the original Nat. Geo
> article has "received wide publication and reference".
>
> It seems a little bit of an explanation about what a science publication is
> may be in order. National Geographic, whilst having established quite a
> reputation, is not a formal peer reviewed science publication.
Peer review, you mean self serving mutual admiration society? Like the
ASA who published a report that says pedophilia is a great thing for
children in their heavily formal peer reviewed psychobable publication?
Then they said that the publication of the immoral article was an
oversight of the heavily formal peer reviewed psychobable publication
after even the Congress of the United States had to become involved to
assist the self serving mutual admiration society?
NG is a
> popular science news magazine, intended to read by the general public. NG
> is no more or less infallible than Time or the Wall Street Journal.
You are right, it is also as infallible as Darwin, Llyel, Dawson, Gould,
Miller-Urey, Haeckel, etc. etc.
>
> So instead of supporting your position you resort to red herrings. That's
> okay, I can respond to those as well.
Evolution is a red hearing, but you haven't resopnded yet.
>
> >
> > The evolutionary fraud of the peppered moths is still being quoted as one
> > of the greatest proofs of evolution in most current textbooks and such a
> > statement has been know to be fradulent for many years.
>
> Care to elaborate?
In 1986 evolutionary bilogist John Endler wrote a book entitled Natural
Selection in the Wild, now acknowledged to be a classic in the firld. At
the time, Endler was unaware of the problems being unearthed in the
peppered moth story, so he listed it as one of the FEW cases in which ithe
cause of natural selection was known. But he also declared that *the time
has passed for ''quick and dirty' studies of natural selection.* Although
most researchers are 'satisfied in demonstrating merely that natural
selecction occured," Endler wrote, "this is equivalent to demonstrating a
chemical reaction, and then not investigating its causes and mechanisms.
A stong demonstration of natural selection combined with a lack of
knowledge of its reasons and mechanisms is no better than alchemn."
Open almost any bilogy textbook dealing with evolution, however, and
you'll find the peppered moth presented as a clasical demonstration of
natural selection in action-complete with faked photos of moths on tree
trunks. This is not science, but myth-making.
Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Jonhathan Wells PP 155
Sargent and his colleagues wrote in 1998, "the classical explanation may
be true, in whole or in part. We contend, however, that there is little
persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observationas
and experiments, to support this [peppered moth] explanation at the
present time.* It seems that 'Darwin's missing evidence' for natural
selection at least in peppered moths is still missing.
>
>
> > Many textbooks
> > still contain Haeckel's embryo drawings, known frauds for over 100 years.
>
> Are the drawings there with text supporting recapitulation or are the
> drawings used to simply to illustrate what Haeckel idea was? Or are the
> drawings used by lazy publishers to support embryo homology?
There were there to perpretrate an evolutionary fraud.
But if biologists have know all along that Haeckelźs [Embryo drawings that
falsely depict that human embryoźs ĺevolveź through various species]
drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J] Gould laid
the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. "We do,
I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and ashamed by
the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these
drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
So Gould blames the textbook writer, while the textbook writer pleads
ignorance. Both of them, however, are quick to criticize "creationists."
"Note that science is a self-correcting process," wrote Futuyma in
response to his Kansas critic, "unlike creationists critiques of science;
evolutionary biologists themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier
literature of their field." And Gould blames creationists for capitalizing
on the work of Richardson and his colleagues by making the "eratz" and
"sensationalist" charge that "a primary pillar of Darwinism, and of
evolution in general, had been revealed as fraudulent after more than a
century" of uncritical acceptance.
But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckelźs embryos in several
editions of his textbook, until a "creationist" criticized him for it.
And it was Gould who (despite having known the truth for over twenty
years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow
biologist) exposed the problem. And all that time, Gould was letting his
colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
equivalent of murder"
Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about
evolution is wrong. Jonathan Wells, pp 108-109.
Nice to know that the religious zeal of fundamental evolutionist
evangelism has misled school children for over 100 years. Yes, science is
a self correcting process, which will some day correct itself to teach
Creation. So they dare say that these fraudulent drawings have endured
more than a century of uncritical acceptance? The truth is, there has
been a century of criticism of Haeckel, with the critics consistentaly
being personally attacked as idiot creationists by the evolved
evolutionary intelligenica by the same oppressive measures that sent 100
million Christians and Jews to the holocaust in the USSR built on Marx
which was built on Darwin, quietly slid under the rug, as have all other
numerous exposures of evolutionary deception, fraud, and outright
misleading assertions that contradict the evidence.
How can Futuyma have the gaul to state that "Evolutionary biologists
themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier literature of their field"
How absurd, Haeckelźs drawings were know to be faked 2 centuries ago.
Darwinźs faulty assumption that a single cell animal was a simple cell,
another pillar of evolutionism, has been know to be antiquated 19th
century science for over a century, yet this statement is rarely corrected.
The religious icon of an ape ĺevolvingź into man, is nothing more that a
big leap of faith based upon philosophy and un-scientific dogma devoid of
scientific observation. It is nothing more than a bad religious icon
based upon antiquated 19th Century science, long known to be false and yet
to be corrected even as late as the 21st Century.
>
>
> > The Miller -Urey experiement is still touted as convincing proof
>
> Convincing proof of what? That amino acids are not incapable of being
> produced? You will have to elaborate a little more about your objections.
The March 1998 issue of National Geographic carries a photo of Miller
standing nexxt to his experimental apparatus. The caption reads:
"Approximating conditions on the early Earth in a 1952 expderiment,
Stanley Miller-now at the University of California at San Diego-produced
amino acids. "Once you get the equipment together it's very simple," he
says...
Burried much later in the article it further states more truthfully, "Many
scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what
Miller first supposed* But a picture is worth a thousand words,
especially on page one compared to the truth buried in fine print much
later. Miller's experiment also relied heavily upon intelligent
intervention, and the limited sucess of the experiment could not have been
achieved with natural processes.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Archaeopteryx has been dethroned as a missing link by evolutionary
> > cladists,
>
> Really? Care to cite a source?
Evolutionary cladists insist that the ancestors of Archaopteryx were bird
like dinosaurs that do not appear in thefossil record until tens of
millions of years later. Their critics look to animals that clearly lived
earlier, but habe not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be
a good candidate. As a result, evolutionary cladists are still looking
for the missing link.
Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
Washington fired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for allying itself
with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link, Icons of Evolution, Science of Myth? Why
much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Jonathan Well, pp125
>
> > but textbooks still prominently display him since there are no
> > missing links,
>
> Missing avian links or missing links in general?
Missing links in general.
>
> This is just a summary -
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Nothing new and conclusive there. That is a habit of yours which is
becoming a little annoying. Don't make a claim unless you are prepared to
back it up with evidence. Dont try and weasel away when you are caught
making unsubstantiated claims. Be a man about it. Instead of showing
that your intelligence lies only on a web site (which is full of flawed
conclusions) that someone else controls, your assumption that someone
elses flawed website because they are on a web site is de facto proof that
you, a member of the mutual admiration society are right. Spare us the
pain and agony of having to wade through a badly presented web site (we
have all been there and done that in the process of breaking out of the
evolutionary brain washing we were subjected to in public schools) and
select for us one or two things which you believe to be true and why, if
you are capable of it.
>
> > Darwin's finches are still touted, which have nothing to do
> > to support evolution,
>
> Except for how natural selection works.
Except for how they have nothing to do with natural selection as an
evolutionary mechanism. Darwin didn't even include them in his thoughts
about a possible mechanism. There were added by others, much later.
>
> > Four Winged Fruit Flys are still used to give a last
> > breat to the mutated monster theory, which the four winged fruit fly is
> > proof that the hypothesis is rediculus.
>
> Never seen that example of a mutation used. However, what's easier to
> understand for a junior high student - a physical change due to a mutation?
> - or text describing the error in replication of gene 56h9 on Chromosome 2?
Obviously, you didn't read my prior posting, the statistical
impossiblility of what you are suggesting, was the last nail in the coffin
for neo-Darwinism, which you seem to be alone in remaining to attempt to
defend. Even devout zealous evolutionary high priests have abandoned that
battle.
>
> > Even the untimate evolutionary
> > icon, the ape to human drawings which are quite fanciful, and completely
> > without scientific basis.
>
> Except for this data (of course you could go to a decent library and check
> all of this in more detail)
I have, it isn't.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Another attempt to pass off a mass of evolutionary icons as factual?
>
> > Why would you think that another misleading
> > example would be honestly treated?
>
> Because you made a claim, and beautifully failed to support it.
I disagree. I have yet to see you support a specific claim with specific
data. Referring to a web site with one sentence you want someone to wade
throught and find is not supporting you case, it says that you may be
hoping that that something over there may support you, but you are not
sure what it is.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you prejudiced and bigoted against anyone who uses the term
> > > > conspiracy? If so, you were the one who used the word first,
apparently in
> > > > a flawed attempt of ad hominem attack against me.
> > >
> > > If I said you argument was bogus simply because you believed in
> > > conspiracies then that would be an ad hom. However, my original argument
> > > attacked your lack of evidence and your outlandish conclusions as being in
> > > error. I was attacking the argument not the person, hence no ad. hom.
> >
> > You should reread your comment again. I never mentioned conspiracy, and
> > the use of the phrase follows the ad hominem attack method used by
> > socalists, to the tee.
>
> Socialist? I must remember you said that when next my dividend cheques come
> in the mail. Very funny!
Not so funny at all, Marx dedicated his blueprint upon the religious
beliefs of Charlie Darwin for an oppressive society based upon the
survival of the fittest and the evolutionary intellectural superiority of
the master race [Hitler's was the master race, in the USSR, the same
concept created the master bureaucrat] bureaucrat to end the principles of
such as American freedom. In deception, Marx called it a socalist utopia,
in reality it put to the holocause 100 million Christians and Jews and
sent the unlucky survivors into poverty, depression, and despair.
You said:> I said BIBLICAL LITERALISTS should move aside from controlling the
> explanation of the World because the new generation of knowledge has made
> that world view obsolete. I didn't say they had to believe it, I just said
> they should step aside because their world view is no longer compatible
> with the accumulated knowledge of the world.
Adolph Hitler and Joseph Satlin felt that way too, until they found that
the evolutionary inferior intellect of creationists could not be silenced,
would not bow down to their evolutionary superiority, refused to worship
the idoltry of evolutionism, refused to deny the Creator, and had to be
exterminated for the greater good of the evolved superiority of the self
serving humanists mutual admiration societies.
The USSR, a great triumph to establish a new society on the principles of
the religion of evolutionism and the oppression of Christianity, lasted a
mere 70 years. Once the Christian capital ran out, the end was bitter and
painful, except for a handful of the fittest which survived quite nicely.
When there is no God, His Law can be done away with with the relative
morality and situational ethics of psychobable and political correctness.
In Naziland, where murdering Christians and Jews was politically correct
and within the 'law', those who were tried in Nuremburg cried, but we were
just following the law, what else could we do? They were found guilty for
not following the Law of a Higher Authority.
Pride comes before the fall.
[snip unintelligeble remarks]
*Evolution i uunproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only
alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
the The Origin of Species.
Gennem
>
> In article <3B23396B...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Firstly, you haven't defended your expectation that a negative needs to be
> > proved
>
> I am not sure that a negative position is mine to defend. Can you please
> provide a question in more suscint format?
I think this started when I mentioned that Kent Hovind claims there are
30,000 human skulls held at the Smithsonian. You then countered that none
of your information could support this ludicrous claim either. You then
expected me to prove there wasn't 30,000 skulls at the Smithsonian.
>
> > Secondly, what exactly about the fossil record would you like to discuss?
>
> 1. It shows a burst of new species all at once, which is completely
> contrary to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism expectation, and completely
> supportive of the Creation hypothesis. It also agrees with Scripture.
So all the species exist at the Cambrian explosion phase (which occurred
over a 80 million year period.)? Where are all the mammals. Why don't
mammals start appearing in significant variety until after the dinosaurs
exit the scene?
>
> 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no establishment
> of new species over time. This affirms the expectations of Creation
> hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the increasing
> complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
This is totally false.
[snip]
> >
> > Its "self evident" yet you have no data to back up your position? ..... ok
[snip rant]
Your claim was "the radical left wing religious movement is dying out
because
of bankrupt morality and ethics." You have not supported this with any
data.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > Unfortunately, the original article with the fraud received (and will
> > > > > continue to do so) wide publication and reference. The truth of
> the fraud
> > > > > is conveniently buried in an internal investigation that will not be
> > > > > published widely at all; hence the conspiracy.
> > > >
> > > > Except of course for the retraction in the very next edition.
> > > > On the issue of the article being used as a reference could you cite any
> > > > sources which have done so?
> >
> > I note that you failed to support your claim that the original Nat. Geo
> > article has "received wide publication and reference".
> >
> > It seems a little bit of an explanation about what a science publication is
> > may be in order. National Geographic, whilst having established quite a
> > reputation, is not a formal peer reviewed science publication.
You have still failed to support your claim the original Nat. Geo article
has "received wide publication and reference".
> Peer review, you mean self serving mutual admiration society? Like the
> ASA who published a report that says pedophilia is a great thing for
> children in their heavily formal peer reviewed psychobable publication?
This is just to weird to let just slip past. Citation please
[snip]
> >
> > So instead of supporting your position you resort to red herrings. That's
> > okay, I can respond to those as well.
>
> Evolution is a red hearing, but you haven't resopnded yet.
Respond to what?
> >
> > >
> > > The evolutionary fraud of the peppered moths is still being quoted as one
> > > of the greatest proofs of evolution in most current textbooks and such a
> > > statement has been know to be fradulent for many years.
> >
> > Care to elaborate?
[snip Jonathan Wells]
>
> Open almost any bilogy textbook dealing with evolution, however, and
> you'll find the peppered moth presented as a clasical demonstration of
> natural selection in action-complete with faked photos of moths on tree
> trunks. This is not science, but myth-making.
Yes, the photos were staged to illustrate the concept the study was
attempting to show.
[snip more Jonathan Wells]
> >
> >
> > > Many textbooks
> > > still contain Haeckel's embryo drawings, known frauds for over 100 years.
> >
> > Are the drawings there with text supporting recapitulation or are the
> > drawings used to simply to illustrate what Haeckel idea was? Or are the
> > drawings used by lazy publishers to support embryo homology?
>
> There were there to perpretrate an evolutionary fraud.
Oh, but you won't say in what context. Hint - if those drawings were used
to support the dead idea of recapitulation then yes it was fraud. If the
drawings were there to illustrate the history of recapitulation theory or
as a lazy way of illustrating embryo homology then they were used
accurately. So which is it?
>
> But if biologists have know all along that Haeckelźs [Embryo drawings that
> falsely depict that human embryoźs ĺevolveź through various species]
> drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J] Gould laid
> the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
> down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. "We do,
> I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and ashamed by
> the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these
> drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
Couldn't agree more.
[snip rant]
> >
> >
> > > The Miller -Urey experiement is still touted as convincing proof
> >
> > Convincing proof of what? That amino acids are not incapable of being
> > produced? You will have to elaborate a little more about your objections.
>
> The March 1998 issue of National Geographic carries a photo of Miller
> standing nexxt to his experimental apparatus. The caption reads:
> "Approximating conditions on the early Earth in a 1952 expderiment,
> Stanley Miller-now at the University of California at San Diego-produced
> amino acids. "Once you get the equipment together it's very simple," he
> says...
>
> Burried much later in the article it further states more truthfully, "Many
> scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what
> Miller first supposed* But a picture is worth a thousand words,
> especially on page one compared to the truth buried in fine print much
> later. Miller's experiment also relied heavily upon intelligent
> intervention, and the limited sucess of the experiment could not have been
> achieved with natural processes.
Correct. Exactly what I thought I said.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Archaeopteryx has been dethroned as a missing link by evolutionary
> > > cladists,
> >
> > Really? Care to cite a source?
[snip]
>
> Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
> Washington fired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
> National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for allying itself
> with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
> biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
> first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
> of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
>
> Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link, Icons of Evolution, Science of Myth? Why
> much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Jonathan Well, pp125
You are aware that Olson is a supporter of Evolution Theory? He only
disagrees with avian evolution.
>
> >
> > > but textbooks still prominently display him since there are no
> > > missing links,
> >
> > Missing avian links or missing links in general?
>
> Missing links in general.
> >
> > This is just a summary -
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> Nothing new and conclusive there. That is a habit of yours which is
> becoming a little annoying. Don't make a claim unless you are prepared to
> back it up with evidence. Dont try and weasel away when you are caught
> making unsubstantiated claims. Be a man about it.
Deja vu. Big time. What sort of evidence do you want? Do you want me to
mail you actual fossils?
> Instead of showing
> that your intelligence lies only on a web site (which is full of flawed
> conclusions) that someone else controls, your assumption that someone
> elses flawed website because they are on a web site is de facto proof that
> you, a member of the mutual admiration society are right. Spare us the
> pain and agony of having to wade through a badly presented web site (we
> have all been there and done that in the process of breaking out of the
> evolutionary brain washing we were subjected to in public schools) and
> select for us one or two things which you believe to be true and why, if
> you are capable of it.
What an unsubstantiated rant. Kind of hypocritical for someone quoting
from Jonathan Wells. I am not going to write a treatise on each concept of
science for your amusement. If you have something you disagree with on
those web sites then bring it forward and we can have a detailed
discussion.
>
> >
> > > Darwin's finches are still touted, which have nothing to do
> > > to support evolution,
> >
> > Except for how natural selection works.
>
> Except for how they have nothing to do with natural selection as an
> evolutionary mechanism. Darwin didn't even include them in his thoughts
> about a possible mechanism. There were added by others, much later.
Natural selection is not an evolution mechanism. Mutation and genetic drift
are.
>
> >
> > > Four Winged Fruit Flys are still used to give a last
> > > breat to the mutated monster theory, which the four winged fruit fly is
> > > proof that the hypothesis is rediculus.
> >
> > Never seen that example of a mutation used. However, what's easier to
> > understand for a junior high student - a physical change due to a mutation?
> > - or text describing the error in replication of gene 56h9 on Chromosome 2?
>
> Obviously, you didn't read my prior posting, the statistical
> impossiblility of what you are suggesting, was the last nail in the coffin
> for neo-Darwinism, which you seem to be alone in remaining to attempt to
> defend. Even devout zealous evolutionary high priests have abandoned that
> battle.
Oh so your basing your argument on something from a web site. I thought
that was intellectually lazy. Well I disagree with the "life from outer
space" crowd. BTW how do you think the fly developed a new set of wings
other than from a genetic error?
>
> >
> > > Even the untimate evolutionary
> > > icon, the ape to human drawings which are quite fanciful, and completely
> > > without scientific basis.
> >
> > Except for this data (of course you could go to a decent library and check
> > all of this in more detail)
>
> I have, it isn't.
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
>
> Another attempt to pass off a mass of evolutionary icons as factual?
Yep, those hominid fossils are factual.
> >
> > > Why would you think that another misleading
> > > example would be honestly treated?
> >
> > Because you made a claim, and beautifully failed to support it.
>
> I disagree. I have yet to see you support a specific claim with specific
> data. Referring to a web site with one sentence you want someone to wade
> throught and find is not supporting you case, it says that you may be
> hoping that that something over there may support you, but you are not
> sure what it is.
Since you have yet to specify anything I have not supported with any detail
of what has been left unsupported I am at a loss for understanding your
point.
[snip]
>
> Not so funny at all, Marx dedicated his blueprint upon the religious
> beliefs of Charlie Darwin for an oppressive society based upon the
> survival of the fittest and the evolutionary intellectural superiority of
> the master race [Hitler's was the master race, in the USSR, the same
> concept created the master bureaucrat] bureaucrat to end the principles of
> such as American freedom. In deception, Marx called it a socalist utopia,
> in reality it put to the holocause 100 million Christians and Jews and
> sent the unlucky survivors into poverty, depression, and despair.
Actually, capitalism is the more closely related to evolution theory.
Survival of the fittest product. Success of the best worker. Enrichment of
the most aggressive investor. But of course I'm being cute here because
evolution theory says nothing about any subject outside of biology. Persons
who take the concept outside it's realm do so at their own peril. Of
course, these hijackers of the concept in no way effect the accuracy of the
theory in its proper environment.
[snip]
>
> *Evolution i uunproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only
> alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
>
> From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
> Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
> the The Origin of Species.
I finally worked out what your quote was. Its the bit where you used * *
instead of " ". The double space before the citation also threw me off.
Anyway, I can't find any reference to a 100th Edition of Origins. The only
source I can find for that quote comes for Arthur Keith in an AiG article
from 1980. AiG do not provide a source for the quote. Im thinking urban
legend but I am happy to be incorrect.
Please provide independent evidence that the 100th Edition exists and that
Sir Arthur Keith wrote the forward.
We can then move onto what he actually wrote, if it indeed does exist.
What is making me suspicious is that Keith died in 1955 The centennial of
Origins would have been no earlier than 1959. Little bit of a gap there.
--
******************************************************************
Young Earth Idiot of the Moment
"There are a lot of "coincidences" which support life on earth,
such as the sun's surface being 6,000 degrees which produces
green light. This just happens to be the most ideal spectrum of
light for photosynthesis. - http://jfamilyenterprises.com/bush/page4.html
*****************************************************************
Michael Burton
<REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B23396B...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > Firstly, you haven't defended your expectation that a negative needs to be
> > > proved
> >
> > I am not sure that a negative position is mine to defend. Can you please
> > provide a question in more suscint format?
>
> I think this started when I mentioned that Kent Hovind claims there are
> 30,000 human skulls held at the Smithsonian. You then countered that none
> of your information could support this ludicrous claim either. You then
> expected me to prove there wasn't 30,000 skulls at the Smithsonian.
That is not quite an accurate representation of the facts.
>
>
> >
> > > Secondly, what exactly about the fossil record would you like to discuss?
> >
> > 1. It shows a burst of new species all at once, which is completely
> > contrary to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism expectation, and completely
> > supportive of the Creation hypothesis. It also agrees with Scripture.
>
> So all the species exist at the Cambrian explosion phase (which occurred
> over a 80 million year period.)? Where are all the mammals. Why don't
> mammals start appearing in significant variety until after the dinosaurs
> exit the scene?
You are overlooking the alternative hypothesis, hydraulic depositation.
*...there are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be
intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No
paleontologist writing in English, French, or German, denies that this is
so. It is somply a fact. Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in
conflict.* David Berlinsky, Commentary, 1996, pp 26.
You are also overlooking the assumptions and limited conditions of dating
techniques:
*Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.*
Science Vol 224, 1984, pp58.
>
> >
> > 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no establishment
> > of new species over time. This affirms the expectations of Creation
> > hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the increasing
> > complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
>
> This is totally false.
We already know that evolution is totally false.
*As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why
do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct
species must have beeen inconceivable great!* Sorry Charlie Darwin, and
after 150 years, sorrier still.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > Its "self evident" yet you have no data to back up your position? ..... ok
>
> [snip rant]
>
> Your claim was "the radical left wing religious movement is dying out
> because
> of bankrupt morality and ethics." You have not supported this with any
> data.
The evidence is the incivility, abortion, anti-Christian bigotry, the
spread of AIDS and STD's by the tolerance of sexual immorality,
anti-family immorality, divorce rates, and a host of other data people are
well acquainted with.
When morality is reduced to personal tastes, people exchange the moral
question, What is good? for the pleasure question, what feels good? [They
trade logic for emotionalism]. They assert their desires and then attempt
to rationalize their choices with moral language. In this case, the tail
wags the dog. [logic is the victim of misplaced emotionalism]. Instead of
morality constraining pleasures...., the pleasures define morality.....
this effort at ethical decision making is really nothing more than thinly
veiled self-interest-pleasure as ethics. [satan, you can decide for
yourself what is right and wrong, and become as god]
When self-interest rules, it has a profound impact on behaviour,
especially affecting how we treat other human beings. The notions of
human respect and dignity depend on the existenance of moral truth.
Without it, there is no obligation of self-sacrifice on behalf of others.
Instead, we can diswcard people when they become troublesome or expensive,
or soimply when they cramp our lifestyles.
If there is no truth, nothing has transcendent value, including human
beings. The death of morality reduces people to the status of mere
creatures. When persons are viewed as things, they begin to be treated as
things.
[>...I just said
> they should step aside because their world view is no longer compatible
> with the accumulated knowledge of the world. Gennem, circa 2001.
In other words, its gennem's way that evlution is fact, or the highway.
Other people's opinion in disagreement to his are things to be discarded
and stand in the pathway of the sucess of his personal view of utopia. He
should be liberated from explanations that evolution is not fact,
eventhough is is unproven and unproveable. Any alternative to his ideas
are intolerantly unthinkable, and the prople who advocate them are
evolutionary inferiors. Nice civility, especially since in the words of
the cannon of the religion of evolutionism:
*Evolution is unnproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the
only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
the The Origin of Species.
Sounds like evolutinists are becoming a bit paranoid]
>
>
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, the original article with the fraud received
(and will
> > > > > > continue to do so) wide publication and reference. The truth of
> > the fraud
> > > > > > is conveniently buried in an internal investigation that will not be
> > > > > > published widely at all; hence the conspiracy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except of course for the retraction in the very next edition.
> > > > > On the issue of the article being used as a reference could you
cite any
> > > > > sources which have done so?
> > >
> > > I note that you failed to support your claim that the original Nat. Geo
> > > article has "received wide publication and reference".
> > >
> > > It seems a little bit of an explanation about what a science
publication is
> > > may be in order. National Geographic, whilst having established quite a
> > > reputation, is not a formal peer reviewed science publication.
>
> You have still failed to support your claim the original Nat. Geo article
> has "received wide publication and reference".
You have failed to support your claim that evolution is a fact, without
alternative.
>
>
> > Peer review, you mean self serving mutual admiration society? Like the
> > ASA who published a report that says pedophilia is a great thing for
> > children in their heavily formal peer reviewed psychobable publication?
>
> This is just to weird to let just slip past. Citation please
APA Study Belittles Child Sexual Abuse
The American Psychological AssociationĽs publication of a study calling
for the „value-feeľ labels of „adult-child sexľ and „adult-adolescent sexľ
to be applied to „willing encountersľ between adults and children has sent
shock waves through our culture. A coalition of family groups,
psychologists, and members of Congress have called on the APA to renounce
the study, referred to by Dr. Laura Schlessinger as „junk science.ľ
„A Meta -Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse
Using College Samples,ľ published by the APAĽs Psychological Bulletin,
concludes that „child sexual abuse does not cause intense harm on a
pervasive basis.ľ
The three professors who wrote it claim that if pedophilia causes
„positive reactionsľ on the part of the child, then it canĽt even be
termed „child sexual abuse.ľ One has to wonder about academicians who
believe that a child must under go an experience before they can decide
whether he should have done it or not.
ItĽs disturbing enough that an organization as reputable as the APA is
willing to give a forum to such a study. What may be even more chilling,
because not as widely publicized, is the way that forces in our culture
are making pedophilia look attractive to its potential victims, many of
whom are not yet old enough to understand what it can do to them.
Such blatant irresponsibility can be difficult to understand, especially
when those behind it refuse to admit any wrongdoing. Indeed, Jamie
Kellner, CEO of the WB network, claimed high moral ground in the
controversy over a story line on the networkĽs „DawsonĽs Creek,ľ one of
the hottest teen shows, that treated a teacher-student affair like a
star-crossed summer fling. Kellner announced that parents and their
children were supposed to watch the show together and hold „:honest
discussions about their family value systems.ľ
Right. A more plausible explanation is that In the push for ratings and
more advertising dollars, too many makers of entertainment are willing to
overlook concerns for childrenĽs moral development.
Pedophilia has to be turned off in our living rooms, taken off our
airwaves and condemned by the psychological community. We need to take a
long hard look at its true face, so that innocent children wonĽt have to.
All above By Gina R Dalfonzo, Knight Ridder News Service. Gina R Dalfonzo
is a writer and editor at Family Research Council.
If the heavily peer reviewed APA article supportve of pedophilia was
published *in error*, the APA has no credibility on other heavily peer
reviewed articles either, especially those based solely on political
rather than clinical evidence.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > So instead of supporting your position you resort to red herrings. That's
> > > okay, I can respond to those as well.
> >
> > Evolution is a red hearing, but you haven't resopnded yet.
>
> Respond to what?
That evolution is unproven, and unproveable, a red herring in a better
intrepretation of the sceintific observations.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The evolutionary fraud of the peppered moths is still being quoted
as one
> > > > of the greatest proofs of evolution in most current textbooks and such a
> > > > statement has been know to be fradulent for many years.
> > >
> > > Care to elaborate?
>
> [snip Jonathan Wells]
snip
>
> >
> > Open almost any bilogy textbook dealing with evolution, however, and
> > you'll find the peppered moth presented as a clasical demonstration of
> > natural selection in action-complete with faked photos of moths on tree
> > trunks. This is not science, but myth-making.
>
> Yes, the photos were staged to illustrate the concept the study was
> attempting to show.
>
> [snip more Jonathan Wells]
NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for because it doesn't
agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion for which he has offered no
evidence and glosses over the fact that not only were the photos staged to
fradulently illustrate the concept the study was attempting to show, the
staged photographs are as mythological as the fairy tale primordial pool
as they are not accurate reflections of natural actions of peppered moths,
and further from the snipped part: Sargent and his colleagues wrote in
1998, "the classical explanation may
be true, in whole or in part. We contend, however, that there is little
persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observationas
and experiments, to support this [peppered moth] explanation at the
present time.*
It seems that 'Darwin's missing evidence' for natural
selection at least in peppered moths is still missing.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Many textbooks
> > > > still contain Haeckel's embryo drawings, known frauds for over 100
years.
> > >
> > > Are the drawings there with text supporting recapitulation or are the
> > > drawings used to simply to illustrate what Haeckel idea was? Or are the
> > > drawings used by lazy publishers to support embryo homology?
> >
> > There were there to perpretrate an evolutionary fraud.
>
> Oh, but you won't say in what context. Hint - if those drawings were used
> to support the dead idea of recapitulation then yes it was fraud. If the
> drawings were there to illustrate the history of recapitulation theory or
> as a lazy way of illustrating embryo homology then they were used
> accurately. So which is it?
FRAUD.
> >
> > But if biologists have know all along that HaeckelĽs [Embryo drawings that
> > falsely depict that human embryoĽs ĺevolveĽ through various species]
> > drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J] Gould laid
> > the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
> > down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. "We do,
> > I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and ashamed by
> > the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these
> > drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
>
> Couldn't agree more.
>
> [snip rant]
NOTE TO READER NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for
because it doesn't agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion. Snipped
part, which Gennem doesn't want to address is redicule by the religious
high priest of evolutionism, Stephen Gould, who calls the use of the
drawings *academic murder* as follows:
So Gould blames the textbook writer, while the textbook writer pleads
ignorance. Both of them, however, are quick to criticize "creationists."
"Note that science is a self-correcting process," wrote Futuyma in
response to his Kansas critic, "unlike creationists critiques of science;
evolutionary biologists themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier
literature of their field." And Gould blames creationists for capitalizing
on the work of Richardson and his colleagues by making the "eratz" and
"sensationalist" charge that "a primary pillar of Darwinism, and of
evolution in general, had been revealed as fraudulent after more than a
century" of uncritical acceptance.
But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckelşs embryos in several
editions of his textbook, until a "creationist" criticized him for it.
And it was Gould who (despite having known the truth for over twenty
years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow
biologist) exposed the problem. And all that time, Gould was letting his
colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
equivalent of murder"
Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about
evolution is wrong. Jonathan Wells, pp 108-109.
Nice to know that the religious zeal of fundamental evolutionist
evangelism has misled school children for over 100 years. Yes, science is
a self correcting process, which will some day correct itself to teach
Creation. So they dare say that these fraudulent drawings have endured
more than a century of uncritical acceptance? The truth is, there has
been a century of criticism of Haeckel, with the critics consistentaly
being personally attacked as idiot creationists by the evolved
evolutionary intelligenica by the same oppressive measures that sent 100
million Christians and Jews to the holocaust in the USSR built on Marx
which was built on Darwin, quietly slid under the rug, as have all other
numerous exposures of evolutionary deception, fraud, and outright
misleading assertions that contradict the evidence.
How can Futuyma have the gaul to state that "Evolutionary biologists
themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier literature of their field"
How absurd, Haeckelşs drawings were know to be faked 2 centuries ago.
Darwinşs faulty assumption that a single cell animal was a simple cell,
another pillar of evolutionism, has been know to be antiquated 19th
century science for over a century, yet this statement is rarely corrected.
The religious icon of an ape Âevolvingş into man, is nothing more that a
big leap of faith based upon philosophy and un-scientific dogma devoid of
scientific observation. It is nothing more than a bad religious icon
based upon antiquated 19th Century science, long known to be false and yet
to be corrected even as late as the 21st Century.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Miller -Urey experiement is still touted as convincing proof
> > >
> > > Convincing proof of what? That amino acids are not incapable of being
> > > produced? You will have to elaborate a little more about your objections.
> >
> > The March 1998 issue of National Geographic carries a photo of Miller
> > standing nexxt to his experimental apparatus. The caption reads:
> > "Approximating conditions on the early Earth in a 1952 expderiment,
> > Stanley Miller-now at the University of California at San Diego-produced
> > amino acids. "Once you get the equipment together it's very simple," he
> > says...
> >
> > Burried much later in the article it further states more truthfully, "Many
> > scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what
> > Miller first supposed* But a picture is worth a thousand words,
> > especially on page one compared to the truth buried in fine print much
> > later. Miller's experiment also relied heavily upon intelligent
> > intervention, and the limited sucess of the experiment could not have been
> > achieved with natural processes.
>
> Correct. Exactly what I thought I said.
And exactly what I said, big headlines for a statement in support of
evolutionary religious beliefs, small back page for truth that the
headlines are not exactly as pressented. The stressing of some supporting
facts, and the oppression of equally valied but dissenting facts is a key
element in advocacy, which is a prime factor in the determination of
fraud. the disenting facts do not have to be entirely missing, intent can
be determined by the treatment of the opposing facts in reduced exposure.
>
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Archaeopteryx has been dethroned as a missing link by evolutionary
> > > > cladists,
> > >
> > > Really? Care to cite a source?
>
> [snip]
NOTE TO READER NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for
because it doesn't agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion. Snipped
part represents published representation of evolutionary cladists as
follows:
Evolutionary cladists insist that the ancestors of Archaopteryx were bird
like dinosaurs that do not appear in thefossil record until tens of
millions of years later. Their critics look to animals that clearly lived
earlier, but habe not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be
a good candidate. As a result, evolutionary cladists are still looking
for the missing link.
>
> >
> > Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
> > Washington fired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
> > National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for allying itself
> > with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
> > biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> > Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
> > first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
> > of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
> >
> > Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link, Icons of Evolution, Science of Myth? Why
> > much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Jonathan Well, pp125
>
> You are aware that Olson is a supporter of Evolution Theory? He only
> disagrees with avian evolution.
Of course, I read both sides of the argument. If Olson was a
Creationists, you would have snipped him since he would disagree with you
on more than one single issue.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > but textbooks still prominently display him since there are no
> > > > missing links,
> > >
> > > Missing avian links or missing links in general?
> >
> > Missing links in general.
> > >
> > > This is just a summary -
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> >
> > Nothing new and conclusive there. That is a habit of yours which is
> > becoming a little annoying. Don't make a claim unless you are prepared to
> > back it up with evidence. Dont try and weasel away when you are caught
> > making unsubstantiated claims. Be a man about it.
>
> Deja vu. Big time. What sort of evidence do you want? Do you want me to
> mail you actual fossils?
I don't want any mail from you, nor do I believe that you would be capable
of mailing such a fossil to me, just identify the fossil with sufficient
specificity, where it is located at, and I will discuss it with the museum
curator and others directly. Please do not list a website with a lot of
irrelevant stuff that I have already waded through and found a waste of
time such as http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html. I
find museum curators more honest than
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.
>
>
>
> > Instead of showing
> > that your intelligence lies only on a web site (which is full of flawed
> > conclusions) that someone else controls, your assumption that someone
> > elses flawed website because they are on a web site is de facto proof that
> > you, a member of the mutual admiration society are right. Spare us the
> > pain and agony of having to wade through a badly presented web site (we
> > have all been there and done that in the process of breaking out of the
> > evolutionary brain washing we were subjected to in public schools) and
> > select for us one or two things which you believe to be true and why, if
> > you are capable of it.
>
> What an unsubstantiated rant. Kind of hypocritical for someone quoting
> from Jonathan Wells.
If you wish to discredit Jonathan Wells, you have provided absolutely no
evidence.
>I am not going to write a treatise on each concept of
> science for your amusement.
Why do you believe that I should do such for the likes of you?
>If you have something you disagree with on
> those web sites then bring it forward and we can have a detailed
> discussion.
The entire conclusions of the scientific observations therein contained,
the glossing over of all of the assumptions and limitating conditions, the
assertion of fact when there is no fact, the absence of the truth that:
*Evolution is unnproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the
only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
the The Origin of Species.
And of course, the intolerant and biased religious bigotry that oozes from
the website against opposing conclusions from evolution.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Darwin's finches are still touted, which have nothing to do
> > > > to support evolution,
> > >
> > > Except for how natural selection works.
> >
> > Except for how they have nothing to do with natural selection as an
> > evolutionary mechanism. Darwin didn't even include them in his thoughts
> > about a possible mechanism. There were added by others, much later.
>
> Natural selection is not an evolution mechanism. Mutation and genetic drift
> are.
Mutation and genetic drift are used as examples of natural selection.
Mutation was used in the mutations theory [now deader than a sack of
hammers] and genetic drift in Neo-Darwinism [also deader than a sack of
hammers] Neither are, and neither are viable mechanisms for family/specis
to family/specis evolution, but merely intra-species variation in the
latter.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Four Winged Fruit Flys are still used to give a last
> > > > breat to the mutated monster theory, which the four winged fruit fly is
> > > > proof that the hypothesis is rediculus.
> > >
> > > Never seen that example of a mutation used. However, what's easier to
> > > understand for a junior high student - a physical change due to a
mutation?
> > > - or text describing the error in replication of gene 56h9 on
Chromosome 2?
> >
> > Obviously, you didn't read my prior posting, the statistical
> > impossiblility of what you are suggesting, was the last nail in the coffin
> > for neo-Darwinism, which you seem to be alone in remaining to attempt to
> > defend. Even devout zealous evolutionary high priests have abandoned that
> > battle.
>
> Oh so your basing your argument on something from a web site. I thought
> that was intellectually lazy.
When one merely cites a volumuous [and especially a highy misleading one]
website without the ability to point the reader to a specific issue that
you believe supports your case, you are attempting to defend your position
with a shot gun, hoping that 1) the reader will not attempt to find the
information that you find important, especially since he already has
visited the web site and found it to be lacking in any new information, 2)
that you don't know what is on the web site that supports your case, but
hope that ignorance appears intelligent.
Well I disagree with the "life from outer
> space" crowd.
Actually, many devout evolutionists, having come to the conclusion that
the fairy tale magic primordial pool, the one you THINK without evidence
might have, should have, could have been hit by lightening and brought
forth life is just a fairy tale and mythology, which it is. As such, many
evolutionists are abandoning the fairy tale primordial pool theory and
advancing the intervention from space theory. the problem is, once again
they are supporting the creation hypothesis of the intelligent designer.
They may even some day know Him as God, for God is extra-tresstrial. In
fact, He is extra-universal.
>BTW how do you think the fly developed a new set of wings
> other than from a genetic error?
Intelligent design. Notice how much easier this is than the contorted
manufacture of convoluted theories to evolve the continuing disproven
previous failed ET's.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Even the untimate evolutionary
> > > > icon, the ape to human drawings which are quite fanciful, and completely
> > > > without scientific basis.
> > >
> > > Except for this data (of course you could go to a decent library and check
> > > all of this in more detail)
> >
> > I have, it isn't.
> > >
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Put up or shut up, if you only have one site, then share what you believe
to be supportive of your case in this ng, and why. This will be
particularly interesting if there is anything new there that hasn't
already been discredited.
> >
> > Another attempt to pass off a mass of evolutionary icons as factual?
>
> Yep, those hominid fossils are factual.
The most controversial fossils in evolutionism are those attributed to
human origins. Piltdown was a complete fraud, Nebraska man was a fraud
[but the fraud won the day for the Scopes trial which with fradulent
evidence, convinced many Americans even to this day, that evolution is
true], Neanderthal, after being passed off for years is now a human being,
and not another species. Lucy, show us the real missing fossils that have
been added to "fill in" the prejudiced evolutionists imagination.
Ever notice how our *early* ancestors look like apes in biased
evolutionary websites? The fact is that we only have fossils, sometimes
not exactly a complete skeletin which must be *added* to with the same
faith and bias. The drawing of ape features and hair are usually a pre
concieved evolutionary bias which can not be determined from the fossil.
It is offered in religious faith, not scientific observation. It is a
fraud.
>
> > >
> > > > Why would you think that another misleading
> > > > example would be honestly treated?
> > >
> > > Because you made a claim, and beautifully failed to support it.
> >
> > I disagree. I have yet to see you support a specific claim with specific
> > data. Referring to a web site with one sentence you want someone to wade
> > throught and find is not supporting you case, it says that you may be
> > hoping that that something over there may support you, but you are not
> > sure what it is.
>
> Since you have yet to specify anything I have not supported with any detail
> of what has been left unsupported I am at a loss for understanding your
> point.
>
> [snip]
NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for because it doesn't
agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion.
>
> >
> > Not so funny at all, Marx dedicated his blueprint upon the religious
> > beliefs of Charlie Darwin for an oppressive society based upon the
> > survival of the fittest and the evolutionary intellectural superiority of
> > the master race [Hitler's was the master race, in the USSR, the same
> > concept created the master bureaucrat] bureaucrat to end the principles of
> > such as American freedom. In deception, Marx called it a socalist utopia,
> > in reality it put to the holocause 100 million Christians and Jews and
> > sent the unlucky survivors into poverty, depression, and despair.
>
> Actually, capitalism is the more closely related to evolution theory.
> Survival of the fittest product. Success of the best worker. Enrichment of
> the most aggressive investor. But of course I'm being cute here because
> evolution theory says nothing about any subject outside of biology. Persons
> who take the concept outside it's realm do so at their own peril. Of
> course, these hijackers of the concept in no way effect the accuracy of the
> theory in its proper environment.
And a complete atrocity since the biological theory has been applied to
psychology, law, art, economics and a host of other fields where it has no
honest application. Considering it is an unproven and unproveable
hypothesis in biology, other disciplines would be best to reject the
evolutionary mindset.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > *Evolution i uunproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only
> > alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
> >
> > From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
> > Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
> > the The Origin of Species.
>
> I finally worked out what your quote was. Its the bit where you used * *
> instead of " ". The double space before the citation also threw me off.
>
> Anyway, I can't find any reference to a 100th Edition of Origins. The only
> source I can find for that quote comes for Arthur Keith in an AiG article
> from 1980. AiG do not provide a source for the quote. Im thinking urban
> legend but I am happy to be incorrect.
The book is available from amazon.com.
>
> Please provide independent evidence that the 100th Edition exists and that
> Sir Arthur Keith wrote the forward.
Buy the book.
>
> We can then move onto what he actually wrote, if it indeed does exist.
>
> What is making me suspicious is that Keith died in 1955 The centennial of
> Origins would have been no earlier than 1959. Little bit of a gap there.
Not much really, it was published on the anniversary, not started then.
Gennem
>
> In article <3B24F328...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Burton wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B23396B...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > >
> > > > Secondly, what exactly about the fossil record would you like to discuss?
> > >
> > > 1. It shows a burst of new species all at once, which is completely
> > > contrary to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism expectation, and completely
> > > supportive of the Creation hypothesis. It also agrees with Scripture.
> >
> > So all the species exist at the Cambrian explosion phase (which occurred
> > over a 80 million year period.)? Where are all the mammals. Why don't
> > mammals start appearing in significant variety until after the dinosaurs
> > exit the scene?
>
> You are overlooking the alternative hypothesis, hydraulic depositation.
Hydraulic deposition? How does that work? How does it tell a mammal bone
from a reptile bone? Can you give an example of this mechanism working on
a smaller scale in the world today?
[snip]
>
> You are also overlooking the assumptions and limited conditions of dating
> techniques:
>
> *Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.*
> Science Vol 224, 1984, pp58.
FYI - the reason mollusks and snails give faulty readings is because the
shell is made from decayed carbon, usually absorbed from limestone. IIRC
that is what that very article in Science was discussing.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no establishment
> > > of new species over time. This affirms the expectations of Creation
> > > hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the increasing
> > > complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
> >
> > This is totally false.
Your supporting arguments will be forthcoming I assume?
[snip]
> [>...I just said
> > they should step aside because their world view is no longer compatible
> > with the accumulated knowledge of the world. Gennem, circa 2001.
>
> In other words, its gennem's way that evlution is fact, or the highway.
> Other people's opinion in disagreement to his are things to be discarded
> and stand in the pathway of the sucess of his personal view of utopia. He
> should be liberated from explanations that evolution is not fact,
> eventhough is is unproven and unproveable. Any alternative to his ideas
> are intolerantly unthinkable, and the prople who advocate them are
> evolutionary inferiors. Nice civility, especially since in the words of
> the cannon of the religion of evolutionism:
Oh yes, I am in such denial that I hide from Creation Science by actually
going out of my way to debunk it.
[snip]
> >
> > You have still failed to support your claim the original Nat. Geo article
> > has "received wide publication and reference".
[snip dodge]
Still waiting for you to even attempt to substantiate your claim.
>
> >
> >
> > > Peer review, you mean self serving mutual admiration society? Like the
> > > ASA who published a report that says pedophilia is a great thing for
> > > children in their heavily formal peer reviewed psychobable publication?
> >
> > This is just to weird to let just slip past. Citation please
http://www.just-well.dk/rotterd.htm
> APA Study Belittles Child Sexual Abuse
[snip]
>
> „A Meta -Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse
> Using College Samples,ľ published by the APAĽs Psychological Bulletin,
> concludes that „child sexual abuse does not cause intense harm on a
> pervasive basis.ľ
>
> The three professors who wrote it claim that if pedophilia causes
> „positive reactionsľ on the part of the child, then it canĽt even be
> termed „child sexual abuse.ľ
False. The conclusion was in SOME cases the there is no psychological harm.
You can read the study yourself if you wish
http://www.just-well.dk/rotterd.htm
[snip]
> If the heavily peer reviewed APA article supportve of pedophilia was
> published *in error*, the APA has no credibility on other heavily peer
> reviewed articles either, especially those based solely on political
> rather than clinical evidence.
The study was not published in error.
http://www.apa.org/releases/csa799.html
[snip]
> > > Open almost any bilogy textbook dealing with evolution, however, and
> > > you'll find the peppered moth presented as a clasical demonstration of
> > > natural selection in action-complete with faked photos of moths on tree
> > > trunks. This is not science, but myth-making.
> >
> > Yes, the photos were staged to illustrate the concept the study was
> > attempting to show.
> >
> > [snip more Jonathan Wells]
>
> NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for because it doesn't
> agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion for which he has offered no
> evidence and glosses over the fact that not only were the photos staged to
> fradulently illustrate the concept the study was attempting to show, the
> staged photographs are as mythological as the fairy tale primordial pool
> as they are not accurate reflections of natural actions of peppered moths,
> and further from the snipped part: Sargent and his colleagues wrote in
> 1998, "the classical explanation may
> be true, in whole or in part. We contend, however, that there is little
> persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observationas
> and experiments, to support this [peppered moth] explanation at the
> present time.*
Interesting idea. Now, notice something here, we are discussing testable
theories and the data to support them. Hence evolution theory is a
scientific concept (whether it is be correct or not). Now if Sargent is
correct, then I do agree that the moth study should be removed and replaced
with a more recent study or example. But I will leave that up to the
professionals in the field to debate about.
Also, guess where Sargent published that statement (according to Wells)?
Sargent TD, Millar CD, Lambert DM. 1998. The "classical" explanation of
industrial melanism: assessing the evidence. Evolutionary Biology 30:
299-322.
In a peer reviewed science publication specialising in evolution. I think
we can kill off your "peer review high priests" conspiracy now.
[snip]
> > > > > Many textbooks
> > > > > still contain Haeckel's embryo drawings, known frauds for over 100
> years.
> > > >
> > > > Are the drawings there with text supporting recapitulation or are the
> > > > drawings used to simply to illustrate what Haeckel idea was? Or are the
> > > > drawings used by lazy publishers to support embryo homology?
> > >
> > > There were there to perpretrate an evolutionary fraud.
> >
> > Oh, but you won't say in what context. Hint - if those drawings were used
> > to support the dead idea of recapitulation then yes it was fraud. If the
> > drawings were there to illustrate the history of recapitulation theory or
> > as a lazy way of illustrating embryo homology then they were used
> > accurately. So which is it?
>
> FRAUD.
Oh, so you are suggesting that recapitulation theory is taught in schools?
I have got to ask you to provide some references for that unusual claim.
>
> > >
> > > But if biologists have know all along that HaeckelĽs [Embryo drawings that
> > > falsely depict that human embryoĽs ĺevolveĽ through various species]
> > > drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J] Gould laid
> > > the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
> > > down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. "We do,
> > > I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and ashamed by
> > > the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these
> > > drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
> >
> > Couldn't agree more.
> >
> > [snip rant]
>
> NOTE TO READER NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for
> because it doesn't agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion.
The reason I snipped it because it was not a logically structure argument
For example:
>
> So Gould blames the textbook writer, while the textbook writer pleads
> ignorance. Both of them, however, are quick to criticize "creationists."
If Creation Science is wrong then of course both are going to criticise
it. The argument between Gould and the textbook writer has nothing to do
with the accuracy of Creation Science
> "Note that science is a self-correcting process," wrote Futuyma in
> response to his Kansas critic, "unlike creationists critiques of science;
> evolutionary biologists themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier
> literature of their field." And Gould blames creationists for capitalizing
> on the work of Richardson and his colleagues by making the "eratz" and
> "sensationalist" charge that "a primary pillar of Darwinism, and of
> evolution in general, had been revealed as fraudulent after more than a
> century" of uncritical acceptance.
Your claim is about one study Michael. Whilst a rather famous study, it is
still one study. Now, if someone presents a counter argument to that study
then that study is disproved.
Evolution theory does not rest on the moth study. The moth study is just
the most common by practice study used to illustrate the concept of natural
selection.
>
> But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckelşs embryos in several
> editions of his textbook, until a "creationist" criticized him for it.
> And it was Gould who (despite having known the truth for over twenty
> years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow
> biologist) exposed the problem. And all that time, Gould was letting his
> colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
> equivalent of murder"
I agree. We are not in disagreement on this issue.
Im snipping the remainder again
[snip]
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The Miller -Urey experiement is still touted as convincing proof
> > > >
> > > > Convincing proof of what? That amino acids are not incapable of being
> > > > produced? You will have to elaborate a little more about your objections.
> > >
> > > The March 1998 issue of National Geographic carries a photo of Miller
> > > standing nexxt to his experimental apparatus. The caption reads:
> > > "Approximating conditions on the early Earth in a 1952 expderiment,
> > > Stanley Miller-now at the University of California at San Diego-produced
> > > amino acids. "Once you get the equipment together it's very simple," he
> > > says...
> > >
> > > Burried much later in the article it further states more truthfully, "Many
> > > scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what
> > > Miller first supposed* But a picture is worth a thousand words,
> > > especially on page one compared to the truth buried in fine print much
> > > later. Miller's experiment also relied heavily upon intelligent
> > > intervention, and the limited sucess of the experiment could not have been
> > > achieved with natural processes.
> >
> > Correct. Exactly what I thought I said.
>
> And exactly what I said, big headlines for a statement in support of
> evolutionary religious beliefs, small back page for truth that the
> headlines are not exactly as pressented. The stressing of some supporting
> facts, and the oppression of equally valied but dissenting facts is a key
> element in advocacy, which is a prime factor in the determination of
> fraud. the disenting facts do not have to be entirely missing, intent can
> be determined by the treatment of the opposing facts in reduced exposure.
What are you talking about now?
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > Archaeopteryx has been dethroned as a missing link by evolutionary
> > > > > cladists,
> > > >
> > > > Really? Care to cite a source?
> >
> > [snip]
> NOTE TO READER NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for
> because it doesn't agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion. Snipped
> part represents published representation of evolutionary cladists as
> follows:
>
> Evolutionary cladists insist that the ancestors of Archaopteryx were bird
> like dinosaurs that do not appear in thefossil record until tens of
> millions of years later. Their critics look to animals that clearly lived
> earlier, but habe not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be
> a good candidate. As a result, evolutionary cladists are still looking
> for the missing link.
So what? And if they find another avian transitional that will simply make
two more gaps.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
> > > Washington fired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
> > > National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for allying itself
> > > with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
> > > biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> > > Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
> > > first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
> > > of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
> > >
> > > Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link, Icons of Evolution, Science of Myth? Why
> > > much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Jonathan Well, pp125
> >
> > You are aware that Olson is a supporter of Evolution Theory? He only
> > disagrees with avian evolution.
>
> Of course, I read both sides of the argument. If Olson was a
> Creationists, you would have snipped him since he would disagree with you
> on more than one single issue.
Was that the end of your argument? Storrs Olson disagrees with the current
models of avian evolution therefor Evolution Theory is wrong?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > but textbooks still prominently display him since there are no
> > > > > missing links,
> > > >
> > > > Missing avian links or missing links in general?
> > >
> > > Missing links in general.
> > > >
> > > > This is just a summary -
> > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> > >
> > > Nothing new and conclusive there. That is a habit of yours which is
> > > becoming a little annoying. Don't make a claim unless you are prepared to
> > > back it up with evidence. Dont try and weasel away when you are caught
> > > making unsubstantiated claims. Be a man about it.
> >
> > Deja vu. Big time. What sort of evidence do you want? Do you want me to
> > mail you actual fossils?
>
> I don't want any mail from you, nor do I believe that you would be capable
> of mailing such a fossil to me, just identify the fossil with sufficient
> specificity, where it is located at, and I will discuss it with the museum
> curator and others directly. Please do not list a website with a lot of
> irrelevant stuff that I have already waded through and found a waste of
> time such as http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html. I
> find museum curators more honest than
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.
Irrelevant stuff? Its a page with a link for each major transitional phase
that anybody could possibly be interested in. Lots of Latin words to lead
you onto research elsewhere if you so desire.
If you want to know more about those transitional examples, I suggest you
ask the person who wrote the article. They obviously have access to either
specific texts or can point you in the right direction for location of
specific fossils.
Or, here is a crazy idea, follow up on the references used throughout the
section http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs
[snip]
>
> >I am not going to write a treatise on each concept of
> > science for your amusement.
>
> Why do you believe that I should do such for the likes of you?
A couple of lines elaborating the science behind an argument, or a link, or
a citation is not that hard to do. That is what I provide you, and it's all
I expect in return.
>
> >If you have something you disagree with on
> > those web sites then bring it forward and we can have a detailed
> > discussion.
>
> The entire conclusions of the scientific observations therein contained,
> the glossing over of all of the assumptions and limitating conditions, the
> assertion of fact when there is no fact, the absence of the truth that:
Which assumptions? Which limiting conditions?
> *Evolution is unnproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the
> only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
>
> From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
> Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
> the The Origin of Species.
Still waiting for your evidence that the quote exists in the source you
claim.
>
> And of course, the intolerant and biased religious bigotry that oozes from
> the website against opposing conclusions from evolution.
Religious bigotry? Where?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Darwin's finches are still touted, which have nothing to do
> > > > > to support evolution,
> > > >
> > > > Except for how natural selection works.
> > >
> > > Except for how they have nothing to do with natural selection as an
> > > evolutionary mechanism. Darwin didn't even include them in his thoughts
> > > about a possible mechanism. There were added by others, much later.
> >
> > Natural selection is not an evolution mechanism. Mutation and genetic drift
> > are.
>
> Mutation and genetic drift are used as examples of natural selection.
I am going to snip the rest of your argument so that entire embarrassing
argument is forgotten. I will do you a favor and forget everything you
mentioned therein. If you want to dig up your severely lacking knowledge of
what evolution theory actual posits then you are welcome to do so.
[snip]
> Well I disagree with the "life from outer
> > space" crowd.
>
> Actually, many devout evolutionists, having come to the conclusion that
> the fairy tale magic primordial pool, the one you THINK without evidence
> might have, should have, could have been hit by lightening and brought
> forth life is just a fairy tale and mythology, which it is. As such, many
> evolutionists are abandoning the fairy tale primordial pool theory and
> advancing the intervention from space theory. the problem is, once again
> they are supporting the creation hypothesis of the intelligent designer.
> They may even some day know Him as God, for God is extra-tresstrial. In
> fact, He is extra-universal.
Well when either of your camps puts a testable scientific theory on the
table, be sure to let me me know.
>
> >BTW how do you think the fly developed a new set of wings
> > other than from a genetic error?
>
> Intelligent design. Notice how much easier this is than the contorted
> manufacture of convoluted theories to evolve the continuing disproven
> previous failed ET's.
You missed the point of my rhetorical question. Unless there is an error in
the genome or in the transfer of chemical pathways that fly will not
produce an extra set of wings. The radiation used in that example would
have damaged the DNA itself. Hence, you have got a mutation right before
your eyes. Totally unplanned, no intelligence involved (other than in
smashing the DNA with radiation). What part mutated or did not was purely
random. No external intelligence necessary.
> > > > > Even the untimate evolutionary
> > > > > icon, the ape to human drawings which are quite fanciful, and completely
> > > > > without scientific basis.
> > > >
> > > > Except for this data (of course you could go to a decent library and check
> > > > all of this in more detail)
> > >
> > > I have, it isn't.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
>
> Put up or shut up, if you only have one site, then share what you believe
> to be supportive of your case in this ng, and why. This will be
> particularly interesting if there is anything new there that hasn't
> already been discredited.
So those examples of hominids have been discredited? Do tell more.
>
> > >
> > > Another attempt to pass off a mass of evolutionary icons as factual?
> >
> > Yep, those hominid fossils are factual.
>
> The most controversial fossils in evolutionism are those attributed to
> human origins. Piltdown was a complete fraud,
Yep, exposed half a century ago.
> Nebraska man was a fraud
No a mistaken identity of a tooth. "Exposed" by the very scientist who
first made the claim.
> [but the fraud won the day for the Scopes trial which with fradulent
> evidence, convinced many Americans even to this day, that evolution is
> true],
Newsflash. Im not American. 95% of the world isn't American. Quite frankly
I dont care what Americans think about something. Just as long as they
keep it within their borders. But thanks to the internet, Young Earth
Biblical literalism is starting to cross that border.
> Neanderthal, after being passed off for years is now a human being,
> and not another species.
<sarcasm> "Stop the presses - Decades Old News Debunks Evolution Theory -
Read all about it"
> Lucy, show us the real missing fossils that have
> been added to "fill in" the prejudiced evolutionists imagination.
Lucy is one of the most anatomically complete skeletons ever found. From
memory she has 40-50% of her skeleton. Of course because humans are
symmetrical, you only need one collar bone to know what two look like, for
example.
>
> Ever notice how our *early* ancestors look like apes in biased
> evolutionary websites? The fact is that we only have fossils, sometimes
> not exactly a complete skeletin which must be *added* to with the same
> faith and bias. The drawing of ape features and hair are usually a pre
> concieved evolutionary bias which can not be determined from the fossil.
> It is offered in religious faith, not scientific observation. It is a
> fraud.
Except of course when the science/art of facial reconstruction is used.
http://www.forensicartist.com/reconstruction.html
Of course, skin tone and amount of hair is subjective, I agree.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Why would you think that another misleading
> > > > > example would be honestly treated?
> > > >
> > > > Because you made a claim, and beautifully failed to support it.
> > >
> > > I disagree. I have yet to see you support a specific claim with specific
> > > data. Referring to a web site with one sentence you want someone to wade
> > > throught and find is not supporting you case, it says that you may be
> > > hoping that that something over there may support you, but you are not
> > > sure what it is.
> >
> > Since you have yet to specify anything I have not supported with any detail
> > of what has been left unsupported I am at a loss for understanding your
> > point.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for because it doesn't
> agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Not so funny at all, Marx dedicated his blueprint upon the religious
> > > beliefs of Charlie Darwin for an oppressive society based upon the
> > > survival of the fittest and the evolutionary intellectural superiority of
> > > the master race [Hitler's was the master race, in the USSR, the same
> > > concept created the master bureaucrat] bureaucrat to end the principles of
> > > such as American freedom. In dec
Something happened to the rest of this post (I assume it was accidental)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, capitalism is the more closely related to evolution theory.
Survival of the fittest product. Success of the best worker. Enrichment of
the most aggressive investor. But of course I'm being cute here because
evolution theory says nothing about any subject outside of biology. Persons
who take the concept outside it's realm do so at their own peril. Of
course, these hijackers of the concept in no way effect the accuracy of the
theory in its proper environment.
[snip]
>
> *Evolution i uunproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only
> alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
>
> From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
> Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
> the The Origin of Species.
I finally worked out what your quote was. Its the bit where you used * *
instead of " ". The double space before the citation also threw me off.
Anyway, I can't find any reference to a 100th Edition of Origins. The only
source I can find for that quote comes for Arthur Keith in an AiG article
from 1980. AiG do not provide a source for the quote. Im thinking urban
legend but I am happy to be incorrect.
Please provide independent evidence that the 100th Edition exists and that
Sir Arthur Keith wrote the forward.
We can then move onto what he actually wrote, if it indeed does exist.
What is making me suspicious is that Keith died in 1955 The centennial of
Origins would have likely been around 1959. Little bit of a gap there.
--------------------------------------------------------
--
******************************************************************
Young Earth Idiot of the Moment
"There are a lot of "coincidences" which support life on earth,
such as the sun's surface being 6,000 degrees which produces
green light. This just happens to be the most ideal spectrum of
light for photosynthesis. - http://jfamilyenterprises.com/bush/page4.html
*****************************************************************
Michael Burton
<REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B24F328...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3B23396B...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > > >
> > > > > Secondly, what exactly about the fossil record would you like to
discuss?
> > > >
> > > > 1. It shows a burst of new species all at once, which is completely
> > > > contrary to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism expectation, and completely
> > > > supportive of the Creation hypothesis. It also agrees with Scripture.
> > >
> > > So all the species exist at the Cambrian explosion phase (which occurred
> > > over a 80 million year period.)? Where are all the mammals. Why don't
> > > mammals start appearing in significant variety until after the dinosaurs
> > > exit the scene?
> >
> > You are overlooking the alternative hypothesis, hydraulic depositation.
>
> Hydraulic deposition? How does that work?
The same way a tornado works, or the waning part of a flood.
How does it tell a mammal bone
> from a reptile bone?
The same way an evolutionists does, by scientific observation.
Although according to devout religious evolutionists, Ian Tattersall, The
Fossil Trail, How we Know what we think we know about human evolution,
Oxford University Press, 1995, the bones speak to you. Personally, if the
bones speak to him, evolutionary analysis of bones may be based upon
spiritualism and not scientific method. Says Tattersall*You look at them
long enough, and they speak to you* from The Fossil Trail, pp 165. It
may well be, Tattersall being descended from an animal, that the fossils
speaking to him were evil spirits, they certainly were not from God. No
creationalists has ever witnessed that any fossil has ever spoken to him.
Of course, as Tattersall does not claim to be a son of God, perhaps it is
easier to decieve sucn an animal man. Of course, Wallace, himself, had
spiritual teachers who *taught* him about evolution, but of course Darwin
beat him to the printing press.
Can you give an example of this mechanism working on
> a smaller scale in the world today?
Mt St Helens.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > You are also overlooking the assumptions and limited conditions of dating
> > techniques:
> >
> > *Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.*
> > Science Vol 224, 1984, pp58.
>
> FYI - the reason mollusks and snails give faulty readings is because the
> shell is made from decayed carbon, usually absorbed from limestone. IIRC
> that is what that very article in Science was discussing.
And what else gives faulty readings? Again you have avoided
uniformitarianism like the plaque.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no
establishment
> > > > of new species over time. This affirms the expectations of Creation
> > > > hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the
increasing
> > > > complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
> > >
> > > This is totally false.
>
> Your supporting arguments will be forthcoming I assume?
You have yet to prove that they are totally false.
>
> [snip]
>
> > [>...I just said
> > > they should step aside because their world view is no longer compatible
> > > with the accumulated knowledge of the world. Gennem, circa 2001.
> >
> > In other words, its gennem's way that evlution is fact, or the highway.
> > Other people's opinion in disagreement to his are things to be discarded
> > and stand in the pathway of the sucess of his personal view of utopia. He
> > should be liberated from explanations that evolution is not fact,
> > eventhough is is unproven and unproveable. Any alternative to his ideas
> > are intolerantly unthinkable, and the prople who advocate them are
> > evolutionary inferiors. Nice civility, especially since in the words of
> > the cannon of the religion of evolutionism:
>
> Oh yes, I am in such denial that I hide from Creation Science by actually
> going out of my way to debunk it.
Perhaps you are beginning to change my mind regarding evolution, perhaps
it is just possible that just as you claim to be, you may well be
descended from an animal. As a son of God, I am not, however.
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > >
> > > You have still failed to support your claim the original Nat. Geo article
> > > has "received wide publication and reference".
>
> [snip dodge]
[dodged snip]
>
> Still waiting for you to even attempt to substantiate your claim.
Haven't been able to find one shred of evidence that your claim should be
refuted, perhaps you are indeed descended from an animal and promordial
ooze, as you yourself claim to be.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Peer review, you mean self serving mutual admiration society? Like the
> > > > ASA who published a report that says pedophilia is a great thing for
> > > > children in their heavily formal peer reviewed psychobable publication?
> > >
> > > This is just to weird to let just slip past. Citation please
>
> http://www.just-well.dk/rotterd.htm
>
> > APA Study Belittles Child Sexual Abuse
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > „A Meta -Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse
> > Using College Samples,ľ published by the APAĽs Psychological Bulletin,
> > concludes that „child sexual abuse does not cause intense harm on a
> > pervasive basis.ľ
> >
> > The three professors who wrote it claim that if pedophilia causes
> > „positive reactionsľ on the part of the child, then it canĽt even be
> > termed „child sexual abuse.ľ
What rational, objective basis would they determine that sexual abuse
causes positive reactions on the part of a child? This is psychobable at
its best and what one would expect from animals posing as men.
>
> False. The conclusion was in SOME cases the there is no psychological harm.
> You can read the study yourself if you wish
> http://www.just-well.dk/rotterd.htm
I have, prior to it being posted on the web. It is a disgusting and
depraved article properly striken from APA recommendations as should other
recommendations be as well, in my opinion. Morality is not a democratic
process, where evil gets an equal vote, irrational and relative morality
is the bankrupt position of evolutionary religious teachings.
Would you mother have approved of your being subject to pedophilia when
you were 6 years old? If so, please have her support posted in support of
the APA's encouragement of pedophilia.
Will you make sure that your son is party to a pedophilia experience at 6
years of age so that he can celebrate the diversity of sexual immorality?
There is just merely the tip of the iceberg of the bankruptsy of
evolutionary moral relevancy.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > If the heavily peer reviewed APA article supportve of pedophilia was
> > published *in error*, the APA has no credibility on other heavily peer
> > reviewed articles either, especially those based solely on political
> > rather than clinical evidence.
>
> The study was not published in error.
> http://www.apa.org/releases/csa799.html
The study was published in error, and the web site you reference is not
the article, but an attempt to distance the APA from the article it
published. In it the APA says:
In July of 1998, the Psychological Bulletin, one of APA?s 37
journals, published an article, "A Meta-Analytical Examination of Assumed
Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Students," by Bruce Rind,
Phillip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman. The article combined the results
of 59 previous studies to examine the long-term impact of child sexual
abuse. Using a broad definition of sexual abuse that included incidents
ranging from witnessing indecent exposure to experiencing repeated
rape,[the APA study conducted research of repeated rape on children--if
this is not moral bankruptsy, what is?] the authors found sexual abuse to
be not as harmful as generally believed [by what standard is it generally
believed to be harmful, and therefore not harmful to the perverts sexually
raping children?]. They also concluded that some victims, typically
adolescents who had sexual relations with adults, perceived the
experience as consensual [perhaps they aren't aware that children, prior
to maturity are incapable of making rational decisions and would rather
eat candy than vegitables and may concent to rape without knowing the
consequences from a rational mature ability of decision making]; some even
regarded it as positive [the mark of the truly depraved]. The publication
of the article led to considerable controversy about both the journal
review process and APA?s position regarding child sexual abuse.
[Surprise, surprise]
APA has always condemned the sexual abuse of children. [A bit hard to
believe after publishing the article that the rape of children wasa
considered as positive by some]
Once again, perhaps you are documenting the proof of evolution, the men
may well be descended from animals, and have punctuated the equilibrium on
the way back.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > Open almost any bilogy textbook dealing with evolution, however, and
> > > > you'll find the peppered moth presented as a clasical demonstration of
> > > > natural selection in action-complete with faked photos of moths on tree
> > > > trunks. This is not science, but myth-making.
> > >
> > > Yes, the photos were staged to illustrate the concept the study was
> > > attempting to show.
In other words, fraudently shown believing that the ends justified the
means, the moral bankruptsy of relative morality and situational ethics.
> > >
> > > [snip more Jonathan Wells]
> >
> > NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for because it doesn't
> > agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion for which he has offered no
> > evidence and glosses over the fact that not only were the photos staged to
> > fradulently illustrate the concept the study was attempting to show, the
> > staged photographs are as mythological as the fairy tale primordial pool
> > as they are not accurate reflections of natural actions of peppered moths,
> > and further from the snipped part: Sargent and his colleagues wrote in
> > 1998, "the classical explanation may
> > be true, in whole or in part. We contend, however, that there is little
> > persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observationas
> > and experiments, to support this [peppered moth] explanation at the
> > present time.*
>
> Interesting idea. Now, notice something here, we are discussing testable
> theories and the data to support them. Hence evolution theory is a
> scientific concept (whether it is be correct or not).
Creation theory, is a scientific concept of at least equal merit based
upon your defination, and more believeable based upon the evidence and
scientific observations.
Now if Sargent is
> correct, then I do agree that the moth study should be removed and replaced
> with a more recent study or example.
[Of course there isn't one, the fraud of this fairy tale has been
propagated for the best part of 100 years, known to be in abject fraud and
suggests that for 100 years, the so called best proof of evolution was
fradulent and no proof at all]
> But I will leave that up to the
> professionals in the field to debate about.
It seems that if you leave it up to the professionals in the field to
debate about, why are you wasting your time here, as you have committed
yourself to allow others to think for you. By your own admissions, your
opinions have no merit, and you will have to visit your favorite web site
to see what the professionals in the field will have you think. Once
again, you appear to be proving that men descended from animals are
incapable of thinking for themselves.
>
> Also, guess where Sargent published that statement (according to Wells)?
>
> Sargent TD, Millar CD, Lambert DM. 1998. The "classical" explanation of
> industrial melanism: assessing the evidence. Evolutionary Biology 30:
> 299-322.
>
> In a peer reviewed science publication specialising in evolution. I think
> we can kill off your "peer review high priests" conspiracy now.
There you go with the conspiracy talk again, you are really paranoid about
this, aren't you?
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > > Many textbooks
> > > > > > still contain Haeckel's embryo drawings, known frauds for over 100
> > years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are the drawings there with text supporting recapitulation or are the
> > > > > drawings used to simply to illustrate what Haeckel idea was? Or
are the
> > > > > drawings used by lazy publishers to support embryo homology?
> > > >
> > > > There were there to perpretrate an evolutionary fraud.
> > >
> > > Oh, but you won't say in what context. Hint - if those drawings were used
> > > to support the dead idea of recapitulation then yes it was fraud. If the
> > > drawings were there to illustrate the history of recapitulation theory or
> > > as a lazy way of illustrating embryo homology then they were used
> > > accurately. So which is it?
> >
> > FRAUD.
>
> Oh, so you are suggesting that recapitulation theory is taught in schools?
YES.
> I have got to ask you to provide some references for that unusual claim.
How about Stephen J Gould and Futuyma? You would like them, they are
paranoid about creationalists as all men descended from animals appear to
be. You snipped this last time, must have hit a nerve.
But if biologists have know all along that HaeckelĽs [Embryo drawings that
falsely depict that human embryoĽs ĺevolveĽ through various species]
drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J] Gould laid
the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. "We do,
I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and ashamed by
the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these
drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
So Gould blames the textbook writer, while the textbook writer pleads
ignorance. Both of them, however, are quick to criticize "creationists."
"Note that science is a self-correcting process," wrote Futuyma in
response to his Kansas critic, "unlike creationists critiques of science;
evolutionary biologists themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier
literature of their field." And Gould blames creationists for capitalizing
on the work of Richardson and his colleagues by making the "eratz" and
"sensationalist" charge that "a primary pillar of Darwinism, and of
evolution in general, had been revealed as fraudulent after more than a
century" of uncritical acceptance.
But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled HaeckelĽs embryos in several
editions of his textbook, until a "creationist" criticized him for it.
And it was Gould who (despite having known the truth for over twenty
years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow
biologist) exposed the problem. And all that time, Gould was letting his
colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
equivalent of murder"
Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about
evolution is wrong. Jonathan Wells, pp 108-109.
Nice to know that the religious zeal of fundamental evolutionist
evangelism has misled school children for over 100 years. Yes, science is
a self correcting process, which will some day correct itself to teach
Creation. So they dare say that these fraudulent drawings have endured
more than a century of uncritical acceptance? The truth is, there has
been a century of criticism of Haeckel, quietly slid under the rug, as
have all other numerous exposures of evolutionary deception, fraud, and
outright misleading assertions that contradict the evidence.
How can Futuyma have the gaul to state that "Evolutionary biologists
themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier literature of their field"
How absurd, HaeckelĽs drawings were know to be faked 2 centuries ago.
DarwinĽs faulty assumption that a single cell animal was a simple cell,
another pillar of evolutionism, has been know to be antiquated 19th
century science for over a century, yet this statement is never corrected.
The religious icon of an ape ĺevolvingĽ into man, is nothing more that a
big leap of faith based upon philosophy and un-scientific dogma devoid of
scientific observation. It is nothing more than a bad religious icon
based upon antiquated 19th Century science, long known to be false and yet
to be corrected even as late as the 21st Century.
--
Michael Burton
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > But if biologists have know all along that Haeckelźs [Embryo
drawings that
> > > > falsely depict that human embryoźs ĺevolveź through various species]
> > > > drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J]
Gould laid
> > > > the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
> > > > down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate.
"We do,
> > > > I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and
ashamed by
> > > > the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence
of these
> > > > drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
> > >
> > >
> > > [snip rant]
> >
> > NOTE TO READER NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for
> > because it doesn't agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion.
>
>
> The reason I snipped it because it was not a logically structure argument
>
> For example:
> >
> > ignorance. Both of them, however, are quick to criticize "creationists."
>
> it. The argument between Gould and the textbook writer has nothing to do
> with the accuracy of Creation Science
I see why you snipped the article, if you read it, you didn't understand
it, and now choose to re-image a scenario discrediting creationits with a
leap of logic which does not appear in the article. Actually, you got the
facts backward. It was creationalists [again] who corrected evolutionists
[again] and exposed the fraud that they were purposefully deceiving
children. That is a criminal act, in most states, as well as morall and
ethically bankrupt. But then, what can one expect from men descended from
animals?
>
>
> > "Note that science is a self-correcting process," wrote Futuyma in
> > response to his Kansas critic, "unlike creationists critiques of science;
> > evolutionary biologists themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier
> > literature of their field." And Gould blames creationists for capitalizing
> > on the work of Richardson and his colleagues by making the "eratz" and
> > "sensationalist" charge that "a primary pillar of Darwinism, and of
> > evolution in general, had been revealed as fraudulent after more than a
> > century" of uncritical acceptance.
>
> Your claim is about one study Michael. Whilst a rather famous study, it is
> still one study. Now, if someone presents a counter argument to that study
> then that study is disproved.
Good try, a study is not disproved by another study, unless it can
overcome the preponderance of evidence. It is not a democratic process as
to which one gets the most votes, nor is it a tie if one study says A and
a second study says B. One accurate study [which this one is] will
disprove 1,000,000 studies that are logically flawed. When the high
priest of the religion of evolutionism says that an evolutionary fraud has
been commmitted on the American people, I agree with him, particularly
based upon the accuracy of the information affirmed by he, himself.
>
> Evolution theory does not rest on the moth study. The moth study is just
> the most common by practice study used to illustrate the concept of natural
> selection.
Oh I get it, the evolution theory does not rest on the moth study, but the
moth study is the best proof that evolution is a viable process is used to
brain wash children anyway, the moth study has been fraudently presented,
misrepresented, and has nothing to do with evolution, so evolution is fact
as any brainwashed graduate of the religious teachings of evolution knows.
>
> >
> > But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckelşs embryos in several
> > editions of his textbook, until a "creationist" criticized him for it.
> > And it was Gould who (despite having known the truth for over twenty
> > years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow
> > biologist) exposed the problem. And all that time, Gould was letting his
> > colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
> > equivalent of murder"
>
> I agree. We are not in disagreement on this issue.
So you agree that :And all that time, Stephen ] Gould was letting his
colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
equivalent of murder" by fradulently misrepresenting the best proof of
evolution, which is no proof at all, knowing full well by his silence that
he was allowing fradulent misinformation to be widely quoted as fact which
would brain wash people into believing that the unproven evolution theory
is a fact?
>
> Im snipping the remainder again
Why bother, you have already proven my point.
You have agreed with me again, thanks. You may overcome your animal
ancestory yet, if you keep up with the argument.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > Archaeopteryx has been dethroned as a missing link by evolutionary
> > > > > > cladists,
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Care to cite a source?
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > NOTE TO READER NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for
> > because it doesn't agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion. Snipped
> > part represents published representation of evolutionary cladists as
> > follows:
> >
> > Evolutionary cladists insist that the ancestors of Archaopteryx were bird
> > like dinosaurs that do not appear in thefossil record until tens of
> > millions of years later. Their critics look to animals that clearly lived
> > earlier, but habe not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be
> > a good candidate. As a result, evolutionary cladists are still looking
> > for the missing link.
>
> So what? And if they find another avian transitional that will simply make
> two more gaps.
More blind faith in the religious beliefs of evolution, but then, what can
one expect from an animal man? You do show promise, however, we will
continue to keep you in our prayers.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution in
> > > > Washington fired off an angry letter to Peter Raven, Secretary of the
> > > > National Geographic Society. Olson blasted the Society for
allying itself
> > > > with a cadre of zealous scientists who have become outspoken and highly
> > > > biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> > > > Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
> > > > first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast
becoming one
> > > > of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.
> > > >
> > > > Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link, Icons of Evolution, Science of
Myth? Why
> > > > much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Jonathan Well, pp125
> > >
> > > You are aware that Olson is a supporter of Evolution Theory? He only
> > > disagrees with avian evolution.
> >
> > Of course, I read both sides of the argument. If Olson was a
> > Creationists, you would have snipped him since he would disagree with you
> > on more than one single issue.
>
> Was that the end of your argument? Storrs Olson disagrees with the current
> models of avian evolution therefor Evolution Theory is wrong?
NO, Storrs Olson, which you admit is an evolutionists, not a
creationalists, is accusing the sceintific community that the endorsement
of the dinosaur to bird theory is being fraudently presented and is
nothing more than the blind faith of a religious belief. Wrote Olson: *
Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age*
When evolution is devoid of truth and scientific weighing of evidence to
support a grand hoax, no better description of evolutionary fraud can be
stated, and this by an evolutionists.
Once again, you appear not to be capable of rational thought enough to be
able to defend your position, and have to rely upon the professional
opinion of others from their websites. We have been to the sites you
recommend, and do not find them convincing, and you have not demonstrated
that you are capable of understanding whatever is there to present your
position here. It is not our job to once again shift through them to
attempt to find something that justifies your opinion when we have already
done that and found them to be lacking. It is not our job to do your
homework for you. If something convinces you, then talk about here, post
the one best thingl from the web site that you find believable for
starters, but cease and decist in forcing us to visit a web site that does
not, in our opinion, provide convincing evidence for your religious
beliefs.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > >I am not going to write a treatise on each concept of
> > > science for your amusement.
> >
> > Why do you believe that I should do such for the likes of you?
>
> A couple of lines elaborating the science behind an argument, or a link, or
> a citation is not that hard to do. That is what I provide you, and it's all
> I expect in return.
I know that you believe that you are introducing a really great site to
those whom you consider ignorant creationalists; however, once again, you
appear not to be capable of rational thought enough to be able to defend
your position, and have to rely upon the professional opinion of others
from their websites. We have been to the sites you recommend, and do not
find them convincing, and you have not demonstrated that you are capable
of understanding whatever is there to present your position here. It is
not our job to once again shift through them to attempt to find something
that justifies your opinion when we have already done that and found them
to be lacking. It is not our job to do your homework for you. If
something convinces you, then talk about here, post the one best thing
from the web site that you find believable for starters, but cease and
decist in enslaving and forcing us to visit a web site that does not, in
our opinion, provide convincing evidence for your religious beliefs.
> > >If you have something you disagree with on
> > > those web sites then bring it forward and we can have a detailed
> > > discussion.
> >
> > The entire conclusions of the scientific observations therein contained,
> > the glossing over of all of the assumptions and limitating conditions, the
> > assertion of fact when there is no fact, the absence of the truth that:
>
> Which assumptions? Which limiting conditions?
the ones for each theory, each dating method, etc, etc, etc. Do you know
what assumptions and limiting conditions are? There purposefully
conceiled absence is the source of the fraud of the primordial ooze
theory, the Darwin finch argument, the peppered moth mythology, etc, etc.
>
> > *Evolution is unnproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the
> > only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
> >
> > From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
> > Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
> > the The Origin of Species.
>
> Still waiting for your evidence that the quote exists in the source you
> claim.
>
> >
> > And of course, the intolerant and biased religious bigotry that oozes from
> > the website against opposing conclusions from evolution.
>
> Religious bigotry? Where?
When you say that beliefs that disagree with your unproven beliefs must
step aside so that an unproven belief can be forced upon people as a
fact. that is a deception, and again shows the moral and ethical
bankruptsy of the religion of evolutionism.
Try
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Darwin's finches are still touted, which have nothing to do
> > > > > > to support evolution,
> > > > >
> > > > > Except for how natural selection works.
> > > >
> > > > Except for how they have nothing to do with natural selection as an
> > > > evolutionary mechanism. Darwin didn't even include them in his thoughts
> > > > about a possible mechanism. There were added by others, much later.
> > >
> > > Natural selection is not an evolution mechanism. Mutation and
genetic drift
> > > are.
> >
> > Mutation and genetic drift are used as examples of natural selection.
>
> I am going to snip the rest of your argument so that entire embarrassing
> argument is forgotten. I will do you a favor and forget everything you
> mentioned therein. If you want to dig up your severely lacking knowledge of
> what evolution theory actual posits then you are welcome to do so.
It is common for you snip any argument that you do not like.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Well I disagree with the "life from outer
> > > space" crowd.
> >
> > Actually, many devout evolutionists, having come to the conclusion that
> > the fairy tale magic primordial pool, the one you THINK without evidence
> > might have, should have, could have been hit by lightening and brought
> > forth life is just a fairy tale and mythology, which it is. As such, many
> > evolutionists are abandoning the fairy tale primordial pool theory and
> > advancing the intervention from space theory. the problem is, once again
> > they are supporting the creation hypothesis of the intelligent designer.
> > They may even some day know Him as God, for God is extra-tresstrial. In
> > fact, He is extra-universal.
>
> Well when either of your camps puts a testable scientific theory on the
> table, be sure to let me me know.
You yourself mentioned the virus discarded on a tissue by a passing
spacecraft mythyology.
>
> >
> > >BTW how do you think the fly developed a new set of wings
> > > other than from a genetic error?
> >
> > Intelligent design. Notice how much easier this is than the contorted
> > manufacture of convoluted theories to evolve the continuing disproven
> > previous failed ET's.
>
> You missed the point of my rhetorical question. Unless there is an error in
> the genome or in the transfer of chemical pathways that fly will not
> produce an extra set of wings.
1. the so called error does not result in more genetic information, and
the mutation, which is incapable of flight, does not increase the ability
of the mutant to survive, which disproves the evolutionary theory, rather
than proove it.
>The radiation used in that example would
> have damaged the DNA itself. Hence, you have got a mutation right before
> your eyes. Totally unplanned, no intelligence involved (other than in
> smashing the DNA with radiation).
No intelligence involved other than in the intelligence involved. What a
contorted statement.
>What part mutated or did not was purely
> random. No external intelligence necessary.
Except for the intelligence involved, which was the whole thing.
>
>
> > > > > > Even the untimate evolutionary
> > > > > > icon, the ape to human drawings which are quite fanciful, and
completely
> > > > > > without scientific basis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except for this data (of course you could go to a decent library
and check
> > > > > all of this in more detail)
> > > >
> > > > I have, it isn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
> >
> > Put up or shut up, if you only have one site, then share what you believe
> > to be supportive of your case in this ng, and why. This will be
> > particularly interesting if there is anything new there that hasn't
> > already been discredited.
>
> So those examples of hominids have been discredited? Do tell more.
What are the examples, can you provide one here?
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Another attempt to pass off a mass of evolutionary icons as factual?
> > >
> > > Yep, those hominid fossils are factual.
> >
> > The most controversial fossils in evolutionism are those attributed to
> > human origins. Piltdown was a complete fraud,
>
> Yep, exposed half a century ago.
>
> > Nebraska man was a fraud
>
> No a mistaken identity of a tooth. "Exposed" by the very scientist who
> first made the claim.
but lets see, the ACLU won the Scopes Trial by the fraudulent evidence of
a boar's tooth morphing into Nebraska Man in the cathedral of an
evolutionists mind by evolutionary fraud getting worldwide attention.
After winning the trial, then the truth was exposed, but poorly reported.
Headlines do a good job, back page corrections are rarely remembered.
>
>
> > [but the fraud won the day for the Scopes trial which with fradulent
> > evidence, convinced many Americans even to this day, that evolution is
> > true],
>
> Newsflash. Im not American. 95% of the world isn't American.
Emigration away from America is quite small. Blessings come in many ways,
America does not need any more people descended from animals who crawled
out of the primordial ooze, most of the world wants to get away from the
world, and come to America for 3 reasons:
1. Based upon the premise that every American has soverignity and
inalienable rights grated by their Creator which can not be taken away by
government.
2. Based upon the premise that every American will stand before the
Supreme Judge of the Universe,
3. That the ability to be free, soverign, and responsible to one's Creator
results in blessings that are the envy of the world which belives that
people are animals that crawled out of the ooze.
Quite frankly
> I dont care what Americans think about something.
Then why are you wasting our time? Stay on the evolutionary religious
sites where you can be a real hero, instead of a troll trying to impose
your religious beliefs on Christian newsgroups.
Just as long as they
> keep it within their borders. But thanks to the internet, Young Earth
> Biblical literalism is starting to cross that border.
Actually, you are also entitled to your beliefs, as long as you keep your
anti-Biblical bigotry and bad science in the places where people are
regarded as animals who crawled out of ooze. America regards its people
as being soverign with inalienable rights granted by their Creator, with
government restrained from taking the people's inalienable rights away.
>
> > Neanderthal, after being passed off for years is now a human being,
> > and not another species.
>
> <sarcasm> "Stop the presses - Decades Old News Debunks Evolution Theory -
> Read all about it"
Not sarcasm at all, just the reality that decades old news has not
supported Evolution Theory, contrary to the urban mythology that evolution
theory is a fact.
>
> > Lucy, show us the real missing fossils that have
> > been added to "fill in" the prejudiced evolutionists imagination.
>
> Lucy is one of the most anatomically complete skeletons ever found. From
> memory she has 40-50% of her skeleton. Of course because humans are
> symmetrical, you only need one collar bone to know what two look like, for
> example.
In other words, 50% can be adjusted to meet prejucicial expectations. You
mean, if two feet are missing, the reconstructed ones could be imaginary
and look more like the feet of a Chimpanzee that the real thing?
Interesting.
>
> >
> > Ever notice how our *early* ancestors look like apes in biased
> > evolutionary websites? The fact is that we only have fossils, sometimes
> > not exactly a complete skeletin which must be *added* to with the same
> > faith and bias. The drawing of ape features and hair are usually a pre
> > concieved evolutionary bias which can not be determined from the fossil.
> > It is offered in religious faith, not scientific observation. It is a
> > fraud.
>
> Except of course when the science/art of facial reconstruction is used.
> http://www.forensicartist.com/reconstruction.html
How does one construct the profile of the nose, when the skeleton yields
only a cavity? Does one make it look more apeish, because he believes
that it must have looked like that?
Does one add ape like body hair, because it must have been there by blind faith?
Does one add feathers not there to certain fossils because it meets the
theory that dinosaurs *evolved* into birds as has been recently done?
>
> Of course, skin tone and amount of hair is subjective, I agree.
What if the skin tone and amount of hair was the same as a modern human?
Would shoot the ape ancestory theory altogether, which is based upon blind
faith, and as you admit, higly subjective to pre concieved notions without
any basis in factual evidence. Such prejudice could even turn a boar's
tooth into an ape man by religious zeal, such as Nebraska man with
emotionalism devoid of logic.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why would you think that another misleading
> > > > > > example would be honestly treated?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because you made a claim, and beautifully failed to support it.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree. I have yet to see you support a specific claim with
specific
> > > > data. Referring to a web site with one sentence you want someone
to wade
> > > > throught and find is not supporting you case, it says that you may be
> > > > hoping that that something over there may support you, but you are not
> > > > sure what it is.
> > >
> > > Since you have yet to specify anything I have not supported with any
detail
> > > of what has been left unsupported I am at a loss for understanding your
> > > point.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > NOTE TO READERS: Gennem snipped explanation asked for because it doesn't
> > agree with Gennem's yet unsupported opinion.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Not so funny at all, Marx dedicated his blueprint upon the religious
> > > > beliefs of Charlie Darwin for an oppressive society based upon the
> > > > survival of the fittest and the evolutionary intellectural
superiority of
> > > > the master race [Hitler's was the master race, in the USSR, the same
> > > > concept created the master bureaucrat] bureaucrat to end the
principles of
> > > > such as American freedom. In dec
>
> Something happened to the rest of this post (I assume it was accidental)
Probably ran out of room.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Actually, capitalism is the more closely related to evolution theory.
> Survival of the fittest product. Success of the best worker. Enrichment of
> the most aggressive investor. But of course I'm being cute here because
> evolution theory says nothing about any subject outside of biology. Persons
> who take the concept outside it's realm do so at their own peril. Of
> course, these hijackers of the concept in no way effect the accuracy of the
> theory in its proper environment.
Nor in its misapplication in economics, philosophy, etc, add to its
credibility in biology. It is my opinion, that capitalism, without a base
in Christianity, is unworkable, as the former USSR is finding out. The
base needs to be in place first, before that economic system will work.
With a base in atheistic marxism built on Darwinian principles, communism
is effective, but communism/socalism which promises utopia, actually
delivers poverty and depression since there is a class envy that punishes
achievement and rewards the poorest workers. In the violation of the 8th
Commandment of God, the Communist manifesto implements the 2nd plank in
its place, which destroys achievement.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > *Evolution i uunproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only
> > alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
> >
> > From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
> > Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
> > the The Origin of Species.
>
> I finally worked out what your quote was. Its the bit where you used * *
> instead of " ". The double space before the citation also threw me off.
>
> Anyway, I can't find any reference to a 100th Edition of Origins. The only
> source I can find for that quote comes for Arthur Keith in an AiG article
> from 1980. AiG do not provide a source for the quote. Im thinking urban
> legend but I am happy to be incorrect.
>
> Please provide independent evidence that the 100th Edition exists and that
> Sir Arthur Keith wrote the forward.
Just checked amazon.com and can not find it, I have a printed sheet from
amazon.com from several years ago which lists it, but is probably out of
date.
>
> We can then move onto what he actually wrote, if it indeed does exist.
>
> What is making me suspicious is that Keith died in 1955 The centennial of
> Origins would have likely been around 1959. Little bit of a gap there.
Not all that big a gap, as the book was completed and distributed on the
anniversary, it was not started on that date.
Michael Burton
Gennem
I am going to be very liberal with snipping here to get to the point.
[snip]
> > Evolution theory does not rest on the moth study. The moth study is just
> > the most common by practice study used to illustrate the concept of natural
> > selection.
>
> Oh I get it, the evolution theory does not rest on the moth study, but the
> moth study is the best proof that evolution is a viable process is used to
> brain wash children anyway, the moth study has been fraudently presented,
> misrepresented, and has nothing to do with evolution, so evolution is fact
> as any brainwashed graduate of the religious teachings of evolution knows.
The "moth study" illustrates the concept of natural selection. Natural
selection is an important part of evolution theory. Now if the moth study,
which isnt wrong, the pictures were just staged to illustrate the point,
natural selection is still a valid process.
>
> >
> > >
> > > But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckelşs embryos in several
> > > editions of his textbook, until a "creationist" criticized him for it.
> > > And it was Gould who (despite having known the truth for over twenty
> > > years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow
> > > biologist) exposed the problem. And all that time, Gould was letting his
> > > colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
> > > equivalent of murder"
> >
> > I agree. We are not in disagreement on this issue.
>
> So you agree that :And all that time, Stephen ] Gould was letting his
> colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
> equivalent of murder" by fradulently misrepresenting the best proof of
> evolution, which is no proof at all, knowing full well by his silence that
> he was allowing fradulent misinformation to be widely quoted as fact which
> would brain wash people into believing that the unproven evolution theory
> is a fact?
Embryo homology is directly observable. It is not part of evolution theory
but is explained by evolution theory. Your arguing against a fact.
[snip]
> > >
> > > And exactly what I said, big headlines for a statement in support of
> > > evolutionary religious beliefs, small back page for truth that the
> > > headlines are not exactly as pressented. The stressing of some supporting
> > > facts, and the oppression of equally valied but dissenting facts is a key
> > > element in advocacy, which is a prime factor in the determination of
> > > fraud. the disenting facts do not have to be entirely missing, intent can
> > > be determined by the treatment of the opposing facts in reduced exposure.
> >
> > What are you talking about now?
>
> You have agreed with me again, thanks. You may overcome your animal
> ancestory yet, if you keep up with the argument.
Asking you to translate gibberish is not a sign of agreement.
[snip]
> > >
> > > Evolutionary cladists insist that the ancestors of Archaopteryx were bird
> > > like dinosaurs that do not appear in thefossil record until tens of
> > > millions of years later. Their critics look to animals that clearly lived
> > > earlier, but habe not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be
> > > a good candidate. As a result, evolutionary cladists are still looking
> > > for the missing link.
> >
> > So what? And if they find another avian transitional that will simply make
> > two more gaps.
>
> More blind faith in the religious beliefs of evolution, but then, what can
> one expect from an animal man? You do show promise, however, we will
> continue to keep you in our prayers.
I notice you didn't have a direct response to the exposure of the practice
used by Creationists regarding gaps. The explanation of why this catch cry
will never be falsified seems to have either escaped you or hit real deep.
[snip]
> > >
> > > Of course, I read both sides of the argument. If Olson was a
> > > Creationists, you would have snipped him since he would disagree with you
> > > on more than one single issue.
> >
> > Was that the end of your argument? Storrs Olson disagrees with the current
> > models of avian evolution therefor Evolution Theory is wrong?
>
> NO, Storrs Olson, which you admit is an evolutionists, not a
> creationalists, is accusing the sceintific community that the endorsement
> of the dinosaur to bird theory is being fraudently presented and is
> nothing more than the blind faith of a religious belief. Wrote Olson: *
> Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the
> first casualties in their program, wrote Olson, which is fast becoming one
> of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age*
One man's opinion. So what?
[snip]
> > > And of course, the intolerant and biased religious bigotry that oozes from
> > > the website against opposing conclusions from evolution.
> >
> > Religious bigotry? Where?
>
> When you say that beliefs that disagree with your unproven beliefs must
> step aside so that an unproven belief can be forced upon people as a
> fact. that is a deception, and again shows the moral and ethical
> bankruptsy of the religion of evolutionism.
Firstly, you accused talkorgins.org of being religiously biased, not me. So
we can pass that off as an unsupported claim.
Now if you want to claim Im religiously biased you had better recheck the
posting history.
Firstly, I said unsupported Biblical Literalism should step aside.
Secondly, evolution theory says no more about morality than quantum theory.
Lets ban quantum theory because it says the universe is random and no god
is proposed by the theory.
[snip]
> > > Mutation and genetic drift are used as examples of natural selection.
> >
> > I am going to snip the rest of your argument so that entire embarrassing
> > argument is forgotten. I will do you a favor and forget everything you
> > mentioned therein. If you want to dig up your severely lacking knowledge of
> > what evolution theory actual posits then you are welcome to do so.
>
> It is common for you snip any argument that you do not like.
I was doing you a favor at that point.
[snip]
> >
> > >
> > > >BTW how do you think the fly developed a new set of wings
> > > > other than from a genetic error?
> > >
> > > Intelligent design. Notice how much easier this is than the contorted
> > > manufacture of convoluted theories to evolve the continuing disproven
> > > previous failed ET's.
> >
> > You missed the point of my rhetorical question. Unless there is an error in
> > the genome or in the transfer of chemical pathways that fly will not
> > produce an extra set of wings.
>
> 1. the so called error does not result in more genetic information, and
> the mutation, which is incapable of flight, does not increase the ability
> of the mutant to survive, which disproves the evolutionary theory, rather
> than proove it.
Still haven't see your definition of information yet.
You also have ignored the fact that the mutant is in a non conducive
environment. Lets say hypothetically (sticking with our fly example) there
was an environment where four wings were an advantage. What would happen to
our four winged fly?
>
> >What part mutated or did not was purely
> > random. No external intelligence necessary.
>
> Except for the intelligence involved, which was the whole thing.
Lets say this fly flew into a nuclear reactor? Would that be Intelligent
Design. Would a four wing fly from that event be intelligent design or not?
Surely if intelligent design is so obvious it must be clearly identifiable.
[snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
> > >
> > > Put up or shut up, if you only have one site, then share what you believe
> > > to be supportive of your case in this ng, and why. This will be
> > > particularly interesting if there is anything new there that hasn't
> > > already been discredited.
> >
> > So those examples of hominids have been discredited? Do tell more.
>
> What are the examples, can you provide one here?
Homo habilis
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Another attempt to pass off a mass of evolutionary icons as factual?
> > > >
> > > > Yep, those hominid fossils are factual.
> > >
> > > The most controversial fossils in evolutionism are those attributed to
> > > human origins. Piltdown was a complete fraud,
> >
> > Yep, exposed half a century ago.
> >
> > > Nebraska man was a fraud
> >
> > No a mistaken identity of a tooth. "Exposed" by the very scientist who
> > first made the claim.
>
> but lets see, the ACLU won the Scopes Trial by the fraudulent evidence of
> a boar's tooth morphing into Nebraska Man in the cathedral of an
> evolutionists mind by evolutionary fraud getting worldwide attention.
> After winning the trial, then the truth was exposed, but poorly reported.
> Headlines do a good job, back page corrections are rarely remembered.
Don't know much about Scopes. That's an American problem.
[snip typical American ego]
> > > Neanderthal, after being passed off for years is now a human being,
> > > and not another species.
> >
> > <sarcasm> "Stop the presses - Decades Old News Debunks Evolution Theory -
> > Read all about it"
>
> Not sarcasm at all, just the reality that decades old news has not
> supported Evolution Theory, contrary to the urban mythology that evolution
> theory is a fact.
Firstly, Neanderthals were not an important part of evolution theory, just
human lineage.
Second, having neanderthals as cousins does not alter human ancestry to any
great degree.
You are attacking a shadow.
[snip]
>
> Does one add feathers not there to certain fossils because it meets the
> theory that dinosaurs *evolved* into birds as has been recently done?
With regards to Archie you can see the feather imprints in the stone.
[snip]
> >
> > >
> > > *Evolution i uunproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only
> > > alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.*
> > >
> > > From the not so scientific forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of the
> > > Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, also known as
> > > the The Origin of Species.
> >
> > I finally worked out what your quote was. Its the bit where you used * *
> > instead of " ". The double space before the citation also threw me off.
> >
> > Anyway, I can't find any reference to a 100th Edition of Origins. The only
> > source I can find for that quote comes for Arthur Keith in an AiG article
> > from 1980. AiG do not provide a source for the quote. Im thinking urban
> > legend but I am happy to be incorrect.
> >
> > Please provide independent evidence that the 100th Edition exists and that
> > Sir Arthur Keith wrote the forward.
>
> Just checked amazon.com and can not find it, I have a printed sheet from
> amazon.com from several years ago which lists it, but is probably out of
> date.
> >
> > We can then move onto what he actually wrote, if it indeed does exist.
> >
> > What is making me suspicious is that Keith died in 1955 The centennial of
> > Origins would have likely been around 1959. Little bit of a gap there.
>
> Not all that big a gap, as the book was completed and distributed on the
> anniversary, it was not started on that date.
We still have no evidence of the accuracy of that quote.
Gennem
>
> In article <3B25E91B...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Burton wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B24F328...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <3B23396B...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > >
> > > You are overlooking the alternative hypothesis, hydraulic depositation.
> >
> > Hydraulic deposition? How does that work?
>
> The same way a tornado works, or the waning part of a flood.
>
> How does it tell a mammal bone
> > from a reptile bone?
>
> The same way an evolutionists does, by scientific observation.
Failure to explain sorting mechanism noted.
[snip]
>
> Can you give an example of this mechanism working on
> > a smaller scale in the world today?
>
> Mt St Helens.
Mt St Helens sorted bones into an evolutionary order? Or do you mean the
laminar ash flows? You must because there is no example of hydrological
sorting of anything at Mt St Helens
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > You are also overlooking the assumptions and limited conditions of dating
> > > techniques:
> > >
> > > *Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.*
> > > Science Vol 224, 1984, pp58.
> >
> > FYI - the reason mollusks and snails give faulty readings is because the
> > shell is made from decayed carbon, usually absorbed from limestone. IIRC
> > that is what that very article in Science was discussing.
>
> And what else gives faulty readings? Again you have avoided
> uniformitarianism like the plaque.
The faulty reading of the shell comes from the fact it is made from decayed
carbon not atmospheric carbon. This is a well known phenomena. Nothing
anti uniformitarion about it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no
> establishment
> > > > > of new species over time. This affirms the expectations of Creation
> > > > > hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the
> increasing
> > > > > complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
> > > >
> > > > This is totally false.
> >
> > Your supporting arguments will be forthcoming I assume?
>
> You have yet to prove that they are totally false.
Firstly, thermodynamics does not apply to complexity.
Second there is no record of any consistant decay. There have been major
extinctions but after each the biodiversity of the planet redeveloped which
contradicts your original claim. For example the dinosaur extinction
completely changed the world. Mammals began to dominate and biodiversity
reached the amount you see today. Are you suggesting there isn't enough
biodiversity in the world.
Third, your hydrologic sorting would have removed any chronological
layering so you have one argument contradicting another.
[snip]
>
> Perhaps you are beginning to change my mind regarding evolution, perhaps
> it is just possible that just as you claim to be, you may well be
> descended from an animal. As a son of God, I am not, however.
Oh look out he thinks he is Jesus.
[snip]
> > Still waiting for you to even attempt to substantiate your claim.
>
> Haven't been able to find one shred of evidence that your claim should be
> refuted, perhaps you are indeed descended from an animal and promordial
> ooze, as you yourself claim to be.
Little reminder. This was your claim in this section "Nat. Geo article has
"received wide publication and reference". Still waiting for you to
substantiate.
[snip]
> > > > Yes, the photos were staged to illustrate the concept the study was
> > > > attempting to show.
>
> In other words, fraudently shown believing that the ends justified the
> means, the moral bankruptsy of relative morality and situational ethics.
So all those displays of butterflies in museum collections are also fakes.
We all know that butterflies dont naturally have pins in them.
[snip]
> Creation theory, is a scientific concept of at least equal merit based
> upon your defination, and more believeable based upon the evidence and
> scientific observations.
If so, this questions should be very easy. Give one example of a
falsification test for a concept unique to Creation Science.
[snip]
> >
> > Oh, so you are suggesting that recapitulation theory is taught in schools?
>
> YES.
>
> > I have got to ask you to provide some references for that unusual claim.
>
> How about Stephen J Gould and Futuyma? You would like them, they are
> paranoid about creationalists as all men descended from animals appear to
> be. You snipped this last time, must have hit a nerve.
>
> But if biologists have know all along that Haeckelźs [Embryo drawings that
> falsely depict that human embryoźs ĺevolveź through various species]
> drawings were faked, then why are they still used?
To illustrate embryo homology.
You still haven't provided any evidence that recapitulation theory is
taught in schools.
[snip]
Michael Burton
<REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B25E91B...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3B24F328...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael Burton wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <3B23396B...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > > > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > >
> > > > You are overlooking the alternative hypothesis, hydraulic depositation.
> > >
> > > Hydraulic deposition? How does that work?
> >
> > The same way a tornado works, or the waning part of a flood.
> >
> > How does it tell a mammal bone
> > > from a reptile bone?
> >
> > The same way an evolutionists does, by scientific observation.
>
> Failure to explain sorting mechanism noted.
Hydraulic depositation is not a failure to explain the sorting mechanism,
obviously, however, you choose to ignor the explanation of the sorting
mechanism.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Can you give an example of this mechanism working on
> > > a smaller scale in the world today?
> >
> > Mt St Helens.
>
> Mt St Helens sorted bones into an evolutionary order? Or do you mean the
> laminar ash flows? You must because there is no example of hydrological
> sorting of anything at Mt St Helens
You are so astute, perhaps someday, you will get it. Mt St Helens is
aerial deposition from a volcano. Hydraulic deposition works the same way
in a flood. If our old lying friend Charlie Llyle could stand at the Mt
St Helens site today, he would wax eloquently about the millions and
millions of years of the evolutionary geologic column uncovered at this
site.
>
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You are also overlooking the assumptions and limited conditions of
dating
> > > > techniques:
> > > >
> > > > *Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.*
> > > > Science Vol 224, 1984, pp58.
> > >
> > > FYI - the reason mollusks and snails give faulty readings is because the
> > > shell is made from decayed carbon, usually absorbed from limestone. IIRC
> > > that is what that very article in Science was discussing.
> >
> > And what else gives faulty readings? Again you have avoided
> > uniformitarianism like the plaque.
>
> The faulty reading of the shell comes from the fact it is made from decayed
> carbon not atmospheric carbon. This is a well known phenomena. Nothing
> anti uniformitarion about it.
Actually, it is a denial that the principle of uniformatarianism should be
questioned as uniformatarianism assumes atmospheric conditions have
remained relatively constant since the formation of the earth, but in
fact, we know that that was not the case.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no
> > establishment
> > > > > > of new species over time. This affirms the expectations of Creation
> > > > > > hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the
> > increasing
> > > > > > complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is totally false.
> > >
> > > Your supporting arguments will be forthcoming I assume?
> >
> > You have yet to prove that they are totally false.
>
> Firstly, thermodynamics does not apply to complexity.
You would surprise a lot of physicists. Are you saying that
thermodynamics does not apply to the complex situations in physics, but
only the simple cases?
> Second there is no record of any consistant decay.
Nor does there have to be. There is some evidence that there is a
consistant decay of the creation DNA material, I am attempting to acquire
some information on this subject.
There have been major
> extinctions but after each the biodiversity of the planet redeveloped which
> contradicts your original claim.
In other words, any assumption from circumstantial evidence must consider
any conclusion using the assumption of uniformatarianism as potentially
seriously flawed.
For example the dinosaur extinction
> completely changed the world.
Wow, you mean just like the flood could have?
Mammals began to dominate and biodiversity
> reached the amount you see today. Are you suggesting there isn't enough
> biodiversity in the world.
No, the biodiversity changed considerable after the flood or some such
non-uniformatarian event for the atheists amongst us. There was a
complete change recorded in Scripture, due to very specific events and
physical changes. Of course, that is revealed which a prejudicial and
intolerant humanists won't consider, but setting any such revelation
aside, the creation hypothesis can still be tested, and it doesn't test
out too bad, either.
>
> Third, your hydrologic sorting would have removed any chronological
> layering so you have one argument contradicting another.
Actually, you have stumbled onto the point, there is hope for you yet.
If hydrolic sorting occured---THERE IS NO chronological layering which
has always been assumed by evolutionists and never proven, and the
circularity problem invented by evolutionists to date fossils by the
geologic column position and the geologic column dating by the inclusion
of fossils is solved and the flawed geologic column theory crumbles
carrying Charlie Darwin with it.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Perhaps you are beginning to change my mind regarding evolution, perhaps
> > it is just possible that just as you claim to be, you may well be
> > descended from an animal. As a son of God, I am not, however.
>
> Oh look out he thinks he is Jesus.
No, I said a son of God, not the Son of God, You are bearing false witness
against me. That is a sin, but I doubt that you care about any feelings
other than your own. Your statement is intoleran, judgementa,
anti-Christian bigoted and purposefully intended to hurt people's feelings
by hate speech.
By your own admissions, you are the product of an animal who crawled out
of primordial slime.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > Yes, the photos were staged to illustrate the concept the study was
> > > > > attempting to show.
> >
> > In other words, fraudently shown believing that the ends justified the
> > means, the moral bankruptsy of relative morality and situational ethics.
>
> So all those displays of butterflies in museum collections are also fakes.
> We all know that butterflies dont naturally have pins in them.
Ding Ding, Red Herring Alert. Displays of betterflies in museum
collections are not intended to purposefully decieve people that evolution
is true in a fradulent manner.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Creation theory, is a scientific concept of at least equal merit based
> > upon your defination, and more believeable based upon the evidence and
> > scientific observations.
>
> If so, this questions should be very easy. Give one example of a
> falsification test for a concept unique to Creation Science.
Prior to doing so, to make sure we are on the same wave length, give me
your defination of falsification test, please be exact and specific.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > Oh, so you are suggesting that recapitulation theory is taught in schools?
> >
> > YES.
> >
> > > I have got to ask you to provide some references for that unusual claim.
> >
> > How about Stephen J Gould and Futuyma? You would like them, they are
> > paranoid about creationalists as all men descended from animals appear to
> > be. You snipped this last time, must have hit a nerve.
> >
> > But if biologists have know all along that Haeckelźs [Embryo drawings that
> > falsely depict that human embryoźs ĺevolveź through various species]
> > drawings were faked, then why are they still used?
>
> To illustrate embryo homology.
>
> You still haven't provided any evidence that recapitulation theory is
> taught in schools.
Actually, I have posted it 3 times as follows:
But if biologists have know all along that Haeckelźs [Embryo drawings that
falsely depict that human embryoźs ĺevolveź through various species]
drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J] Gould laid
the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. "We do,
I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and ashamed by
the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these
drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
So Gould blames the textbook writer, while the textbook writer pleads
ignorance. Both of them, however, are quick to criticize "creationists."
"Note that science is a self-correcting process," wrote Futuyma in
response to his Kansas critic, "unlike creationists critiques of science;
evolutionary biologists themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier
literature of their field." And Gould blames creationists for capitalizing
on the work of Richardson and his colleagues by making the "eratz" and
"sensationalist" charge that "a primary pillar of Darwinism, and of
evolution in general, had been revealed as fraudulent after more than a
century" of uncritical acceptance.
But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckelźs embryos in several
editions of his textbook, until a "creationist" criticized him for it.
And it was Gould who (despite having known the truth for over twenty
years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow
biologist) exposed the problem. And all that time, Gould was letting his
colleagues become accessories to what he himself calls "the academic
equivalent of murder"
Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about
evolution is wrong. Jonathan Wells, pp 108-109.
Nice to know that the religious zeal of fundamental evolutionist
evangelism has misled school children for over 100 years. Yes, science is
a self correcting process, which will some day correct itself to teach
Creation. So they dare say that these fraudulent drawings have endured
more than a century of uncritical acceptance? The truth is, there has
been a century of criticism of Haeckel, quietly slid under the rug, as
have all other numerous exposures of evolutionary deception, fraud, and
outright misleading assertions that contradict the evidence.
How can Futuyma have the gaul to state that "Evolutionary biologists
themselves reveal inaccuracies in the earlier literature of their field"
How absurd, Haeckelźs drawings were know to be faked 2 centuries ago.
Darwinźs faulty assumption that a single cell animal was a simple cell,
another pillar of evolutionism, has been know to be antiquated 19th
century science for over a century, yet this statement is never corrected.
The religious icon of an ape ĺevolvingź into man, is nothing more that a
big leap of faith based upon philosophy and un-scientific dogma devoid of
scientific observation. It is nothing more than a bad religious icon
based upon antiquated 19th Century science, long known to be false and yet
to be corrected even as late as the 21st Century.
>
> [snip]
Gennem
>
> In article <3B29E6D0...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
[snip]
> >
> > Failure to explain sorting mechanism noted.
>
> Hydraulic depositation is not a failure to explain the sorting mechanism,
> obviously, however, you choose to ignor the explanation of the sorting
> mechanism.
Humor me. What is the sorting mechanism again?
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > Can you give an example of this mechanism working on
> > > > a smaller scale in the world today?
> > >
> > > Mt St Helens.
> >
> > Mt St Helens sorted bones into an evolutionary order? Or do you mean the
> > laminar ash flows? You must because there is no example of hydrological
> > sorting of anything at Mt St Helens
>
> You are so astute, perhaps someday, you will get it. Mt St Helens is
> aerial deposition from a volcano. Hydraulic deposition works the same way
> in a flood. If our old lying friend Charlie Llyle could stand at the Mt
> St Helens site today, he would wax eloquently about the millions and
> millions of years of the evolutionary geologic column uncovered at this
> site.
More likely he would wax eloquently about the pyroplastic and laminar
flows.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You are also overlooking the assumptions and limited conditions of
> dating
> > > > > techniques:
> > > > >
> > > > > *Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.*
> > > > > Science Vol 224, 1984, pp58.
> > > >
> > > > FYI - the reason mollusks and snails give faulty readings is because the
> > > > shell is made from decayed carbon, usually absorbed from limestone. IIRC
> > > > that is what that very article in Science was discussing.
> > >
> > > And what else gives faulty readings? Again you have avoided
> > > uniformitarianism like the plaque.
> >
> > The faulty reading of the shell comes from the fact it is made from decayed
> > carbon not atmospheric carbon. This is a well known phenomena. Nothing
> > anti uniformitarion about it.
>
> Actually, it is a denial that the principle of uniformatarianism should be
> questioned as uniformatarianism assumes atmospheric conditions have
> remained relatively constant since the formation of the earth, but in
> fact, we know that that was not the case.
Im going to say this very slowly. The carbon for the shell comes from
limestone. Not the atmosphere. Understand yet?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no
> > > establishment
> > > > > > > of new species over time. This affirms the expectations of Creation
> > > > > > > hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the
> > > increasing
> > > > > > > complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is totally false.
> > > >
> > > > Your supporting arguments will be forthcoming I assume?
> > >
> > > You have yet to prove that they are totally false.
> >
> > Firstly, thermodynamics does not apply to complexity.
>
> You would surprise a lot of physicists. Are you saying that
> thermodynamics does not apply to the complex situations in physics, but
> only the simple cases?
What the f....? You have no idea what (a) thermodynamics is (b) what
complexity is.
>
> > Second there is no record of any consistant decay.
>
> Nor does there have to be. There is some evidence that there is a
> consistant decay of the creation DNA material, I am attempting to acquire
> some information on this subject.
>
> There have been major
> > extinctions but after each the biodiversity of the planet redeveloped which
> > contradicts your original claim.
>
> In other words, any assumption from circumstantial evidence must consider
> any conclusion using the assumption of uniformatarianism as potentially
> seriously flawed.
Uniformatarianism applies to fundamental chemical and physical properties.
What I described above is not covered by uniformitarianism.
>
> For example the dinosaur extinction
> > completely changed the world.
>
> Wow, you mean just like the flood could have?
>
> Mammals began to dominate and biodiversity
> > reached the amount you see today. Are you suggesting there isn't enough
> > biodiversity in the world.
>
> No, the biodiversity changed considerable after the flood or some such
> non-uniformatarian event for the atheists amongst us. There was a
> complete change recorded in Scripture, due to very specific events and
> physical changes.
Apart from light suddenly being able to refract what did you have in mind?
> Of course, that is revealed which a prejudicial and
> intolerant humanists won't consider, but setting any such revelation
> aside, the creation hypothesis can still be tested, and it doesn't test
> out too bad, either.
Really, describe a test for me.
>
> >
> > Third, your hydrologic sorting would have removed any chronological
> > layering so you have one argument contradicting another.
>
> Actually, you have stumbled onto the point, there is hope for you yet.
>
> If hydrolic sorting occured---THERE IS NO chronological layering which
> has always been assumed by evolutionists and never proven, and the
> circularity problem invented by evolutionists to date fossils by the
> geologic column position and the geologic column dating by the inclusion
> of fossils is solved and the flawed geologic column theory crumbles
> carrying Charlie Darwin with it.
Your argument would be great if you could explain why all the mammal bones
are in the upper layers.
[snip]
> >
> > > > > > Yes, the photos were staged to illustrate the concept the study was
> > > > > > attempting to show.
> > >
> > > In other words, fraudently shown believing that the ends justified the
> > > means, the moral bankruptsy of relative morality and situational ethics.
> >
> > So all those displays of butterflies in museum collections are also fakes.
> > We all know that butterflies dont naturally have pins in them.
>
> Ding Ding, Red Herring Alert. Displays of betterflies in museum
> collections are not intended to purposefully decieve people that evolution
> is true in a fradulent manner.
Oh, so setting a creature to illustrate a point is only bad if it
illustrates a concept of Evolution Theory?
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Creation theory, is a scientific concept of at least equal merit based
> > > upon your defination, and more believeable based upon the evidence and
> > > scientific observations.
> >
> > If so, this questions should be very easy. Give one example of a
> > falsification test for a concept unique to Creation Science.
>
> Prior to doing so, to make sure we are on the same wave length, give me
> your defination of falsification test, please be exact and specific.
If mammal bones and reptile bones do not hydrologically sort into separate
layers then the hydrological sorting idea is falsified.
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so you are suggesting that recapitulation theory is taught in schools?
> > >
> > > YES.
> > >
> > > > I have got to ask you to provide some references for that unusual claim.
> > >
> > > How about Stephen J Gould and Futuyma? You would like them, they are
> > > paranoid about creationalists as all men descended from animals appear to
> > > be. You snipped this last time, must have hit a nerve.
> > >
> > > But if biologists have know all along that Haeckelźs [Embryo drawings that
> > > falsely depict that human embryoźs ĺevolveź through various species]
> > > drawings were faked, then why are they still used?
> >
> > To illustrate embryo homology.
> >
> > You still haven't provided any evidence that recapitulation theory is
> > taught in schools.
>
> Actually, I have posted it 3 times as follows:
>
> But if biologists have know all along that Haeckelźs [Embryo drawings that
> falsely depict that human embryoźs ĺevolveź through various species]
> drawings were faked, then why are they still used? [Stephen J] Gould laid
> the blame at the feet of textbook-writers, blasting them for "dumbing
> down" their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. "We do,
> I think, have the right," he wrote, "to be both astonished and ashamed by
> the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these
> drawings in a large number, if not a majority , of modern textbooks."
[snip]
We get your point that the drawings are still used in a few textbooks.
However the drawings are used to illustrate embryo homology not
recapitulation theory. I ask yet again: what is your evidence that
recapitulation theory is taught as fact in schools?
[snip]
Michael Burton
<REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Burton wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B29E6D0...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > Failure to explain sorting mechanism noted.
> >
> > Hydraulic depositation is not a failure to explain the sorting mechanism,
> > obviously, however, you choose to ignor the explanation of the sorting
> > mechanism.
>
> Humor me. What is the sorting mechanism again?
Hydraulic depositation, you know, the one you yourself mentioned about 4
messages ago?
>
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you give an example of this mechanism working on
> > > > > a smaller scale in the world today?
> > > >
> > > > Mt St Helens.
> > >
> > > Mt St Helens sorted bones into an evolutionary order? Or do you mean the
> > > laminar ash flows? You must because there is no example of hydrological
> > > sorting of anything at Mt St Helens
> >
> > You are so astute, perhaps someday, you will get it. Mt St Helens is
> > aerial deposition from a volcano. Hydraulic deposition works the same way
> > in a flood. If our old lying friend Charlie Llyle could stand at the Mt
> > St Helens site today, he would wax eloquently about the millions and
> > millions of years of the evolutionary geologic column uncovered at this
> > site.
>
> More likely he would wax eloquently about the pyroplastic and laminar
> flows.
Like he did about the deception of the erosion of Niagra Falls so that he
could *prove* his theory eventhough the data did not support it?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are also overlooking the assumptions and limited conditions of
> > dating
> > > > > > techniques:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000
years old.*
> > > > > > Science Vol 224, 1984, pp58.
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI - the reason mollusks and snails give faulty readings is
because the
> > > > > shell is made from decayed carbon, usually absorbed from
limestone. IIRC
> > > > > that is what that very article in Science was discussing.
> > > >
> > > > And what else gives faulty readings? Again you have avoided
> > > > uniformitarianism like the plaque.
> > >
> > > The faulty reading of the shell comes from the fact it is made from
decayed
> > > carbon not atmospheric carbon. This is a well known phenomena. Nothing
> > > anti uniformitarion about it.
> >
> > Actually, it is a denial that the principle of uniformatarianism should be
> > questioned as uniformatarianism assumes atmospheric conditions have
> > remained relatively constant since the formation of the earth, but in
> > fact, we know that that was not the case.
>
> Im going to say this very slowly. The carbon for the shell comes from
> limestone. Not the atmosphere. Understand yet?
Any proof for that statement?
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no
> > > > establishment
> > > > > > > > of new species over time. This affirms the expectations
of Creation
> > > > > > > > hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the
> > > > increasing
> > > > > > > > complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is totally false.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your supporting arguments will be forthcoming I assume?
> > > >
> > > > You have yet to prove that they are totally false.
> > >
> > > Firstly, thermodynamics does not apply to complexity.
> >
> > You would surprise a lot of physicists. Are you saying that
> > thermodynamics does not apply to the complex situations in physics, but
> > only the simple cases?
>
> What the f....? You have no idea what (a) thermodynamics is (b) what
> complexity is.
Testy today, aren't we. Have you read all of the laws of thermodynamics?
>
> >
> > > Second there is no record of any consistant decay.
> >
> > Nor does there have to be. There is some evidence that there is a
> > consistant decay of the creation DNA material, I am attempting to acquire
> > some information on this subject.
> >
> > There have been major
> > > extinctions but after each the biodiversity of the planet
redeveloped which
> > > contradicts your original claim.
> >
> > In other words, any assumption from circumstantial evidence must consider
> > any conclusion using the assumption of uniformatarianism as potentially
> > seriously flawed.
>
> Uniformatarianism applies to fundamental chemical and physical properties.
> What I described above is not covered by uniformitarianism.
Obviously, you do not understand the evolutionary assumption and limited
condition, completely without evidence, of uniformatariasm. It is so
assumed, that you are apparently not even aware of it. Not trying to be
hard on you, it is one of those intelligencia top secrets swept under the
carpet like the inability of evolutionists to look at the limitations of
fossil remains and all agree as to whether it is human or not. Trade
secrets like those would cause the followers of blind faith to tremble and
loose faith in the high priests of evolutionism, and we can't have that,
can we?
>
> >
> > For example the dinosaur extinction
> > > completely changed the world.
> >
> > Wow, you mean just like the flood could have?
> >
> > Mammals began to dominate and biodiversity
> > > reached the amount you see today. Are you suggesting there isn't enough
> > > biodiversity in the world.
> >
> > No, the biodiversity changed considerable after the flood or some such
> > non-uniformatarian event for the atheists amongst us. There was a
> > complete change recorded in Scripture, due to very specific events and
> > physical changes.
>
> Apart from light suddenly being able to refract what did you have in mind?
You really don't know, do you?
>
> > Of course, that is revealed which a prejudicial and
> > intolerant humanists won't consider, but setting any such revelation
> > aside, the creation hypothesis can still be tested, and it doesn't test
> > out too bad, either.
>
> Really, describe a test for me.
The fossil record for one. It has discredited Darwinism completely as
admitted by devout religious evolutionists as has been previously posted
in this thread and often snipped by you without comment.
The fossil record is reflective of the creation hypothesis.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Third, your hydrologic sorting would have removed any chronological
> > > layering so you have one argument contradicting another.
> >
> > Actually, you have stumbled onto the point, there is hope for you yet.
> >
> > If hydrolic sorting occured---THERE IS NO chronological layering which
> > has always been assumed by evolutionists and never proven, and the
> > circularity problem invented by evolutionists to date fossils by the
> > geologic column position and the geologic column dating by the inclusion
> > of fossils is solved and the flawed geologic column theory crumbles
> > carrying Charlie Darwin with it.
>
> Your argument would be great if you could explain why all the mammal bones
> are in the upper layers.
They don't live at the bottom of the ocean, their density is less than
shell fish, they drown in water and swim as long as they can.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > > > > > Yes, the photos were staged to illustrate the concept the
study was
> > > > > > > attempting to show.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, fraudently shown believing that the ends justified the
> > > > means, the moral bankruptsy of relative morality and situational ethics.
> > >
> > > So all those displays of butterflies in museum collections are also fakes.
> > > We all know that butterflies dont naturally have pins in them.
> >
> > Ding Ding, Red Herring Alert. Displays of betterflies in museum
> > collections are not intended to purposefully decieve people that evolution
> > is true in a fradulent manner.
>
> Oh, so setting a creature to illustrate a point is only bad if it
> illustrates a concept of Evolution Theory?
No, fraudently setting a creature to illustrate a non existant point is
always bad if it is designed to advocate a fradulent concept in order to
falsly advance a biased and unsupported Theory and claiming it to be fact
based upon fraudently setting a creature to illustrate a non existant
point.
>
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Creation theory, is a scientific concept of at least equal merit based
> > > > upon your defination, and more believeable based upon the evidence and
> > > > scientific observations.
> > >
> > > If so, this questions should be very easy. Give one example of a
> > > falsification test for a concept unique to Creation Science.
> >
> > Prior to doing so, to make sure we are on the same wave length, give me
> > your defination of falsification test, please be exact and specific.
>
> If mammal bones and reptile bones do not hydrologically sort into separate
> layers then the hydrological sorting idea is falsified.
Interesting, since they do, as you allude to above.
Gennem
>
> In article <3B2C2096...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Burton wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B29E6D0...@hotmail.com>, Gennem
> > > <REMOVE_THIS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >
> > > > Failure to explain sorting mechanism noted.
> > >
> > > Hydraulic depositation is not a failure to explain the sorting mechanism,
> > > obviously, however, you choose to ignor the explanation of the sorting
> > > mechanism.
> >
> > Humor me. What is the sorting mechanism again?
>
> Hydraulic depositation, you know, the one you yourself mentioned about 4
> messages ago?
I have not mentioned it AFAIK. Humor me, what is the mechanism which sorts
reptile bones and mammal bones of the same density.
Of course you will also have to explain why you are applying
uniformitarianism when you said this was not a valid concept.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you give an example of this mechanism working on
> > > > > > a smaller scale in the world today?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mt St Helens.
> > > >
> > > > Mt St Helens sorted bones into an evolutionary order? Or do you mean the
> > > > laminar ash flows? You must because there is no example of hydrological
> > > > sorting of anything at Mt St Helens
> > >
> > > You are so astute, perhaps someday, you will get it. Mt St Helens is
> > > aerial deposition from a volcano. Hydraulic deposition works the same way
> > > in a flood. If our old lying friend Charlie Llyle could stand at the Mt
> > > St Helens site today, he would wax eloquently about the millions and
> > > millions of years of the evolutionary geologic column uncovered at this
> > > site.
> >
> > More likely he would wax eloquently about the pyroplastic and laminar
> > flows.
>
> Like he did about the deception of the erosion of Niagra Falls so that he
> could *prove* his theory eventhough the data did not support it?
Niagara Falls? Elaborate please.
The very same article which you quoted from.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. It shows a gradual extinction of many species and and no
> > > > > establishment
> > > > > > > > > of new species over time. This affirms the expectations
> of Creation
> > > > > > > > > hypothesis, the theories of thermodynamics while rejecting the
> > > > > increasing
> > > > > > > > > complexity of Darwinistic theoris.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is totally false.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your supporting arguments will be forthcoming I assume?
> > > > >
> > > > > You have yet to prove that they are totally false.
> > > >
> > > > Firstly, thermodynamics does not apply to complexity.
> > >
> > > You would surprise a lot of physicists. Are you saying that
> > > thermodynamics does not apply to the complex situations in physics, but
> > > only the simple cases?
> >
> > What the f....? You have no idea what (a) thermodynamics is (b) what
> > complexity is.
>
> Testy today, aren't we. Have you read all of the laws of thermodynamics?
Yes, there are only four. None mention complexity.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Second there is no record of any consistant decay.
> > >
> > > Nor does there have to be. There is some evidence that there is a
> > > consistant decay of the creation DNA material, I am attempting to acquire
> > > some information on this subject.
> > >
> > > There have been major
> > > > extinctions but after each the biodiversity of the planet
> redeveloped which
> > > > contradicts your original claim.
> > >
> > > In other words, any assumption from circumstantial evidence must consider
> > > any conclusion using the assumption of uniformatarianism as potentially
> > > seriously flawed.
> >
> > Uniformatarianism applies to fundamental chemical and physical properties.
> > What I described above is not covered by uniformitarianism.
>
> Obviously, you do not understand the evolutionary assumption and limited
> condition, completely without evidence, of uniformatariasm. It is so
> assumed, that you are apparently not even aware of it. Not trying to be
> hard on you, it is one of those intelligencia top secrets swept under the
> carpet like the inability of evolutionists to look at the limitations of
> fossil remains and all agree as to whether it is human or not. Trade
> secrets like those would cause the followers of blind faith to tremble and
> loose faith in the high priests of evolutionism, and we can't have that,
> can we?
There you go with you conspiracy claims again.
>
> >
> > >
> > > For example the dinosaur extinction
> > > > completely changed the world.
> > >
> > > Wow, you mean just like the flood could have?
> > >
> > > Mammals began to dominate and biodiversity
> > > > reached the amount you see today. Are you suggesting there isn't enough
> > > > biodiversity in the world.
> > >
> > > No, the biodiversity changed considerable after the flood or some such
> > > non-uniformatarian event for the atheists amongst us. There was a
> > > complete change recorded in Scripture, due to very specific events and
> > > physical changes.
> >
> > Apart from light suddenly being able to refract what did you have in mind?
>
> You really don't know, do you?
That is why I asked. You may answer the question when ready.
>
> >
> > > Of course, that is revealed which a prejudicial and
> > > intolerant humanists won't consider, but setting any such revelation
> > > aside, the creation hypothesis can still be tested, and it doesn't test
> > > out too bad, either.
> >
> > Really, describe a test for me.
>
> The fossil record for one. It has discredited Darwinism completely as
> admitted by devout religious evolutionists as has been previously posted
> in this thread and often snipped by you without comment.
Nice false dichotomy
>
> The fossil record is reflective of the creation hypothesis.
Oh really. Explain why mammals are "younger" than reptiles who are
"younger" than the first amphibians. Explain why flowering plants are
"younger" than non flowering plants. Simple questions.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, your hydrologic sorting would have removed any chronological
> > > > layering so you have one argument contradicting another.
> > >
> > > Actually, you have stumbled onto the point, there is hope for you yet.
> > >
> > > If hydrolic sorting occured---THERE IS NO chronological layering which
> > > has always been assumed by evolutionists and never proven, and the
> > > circularity problem invented by evolutionists to date fossils by the
> > > geologic column position and the geologic column dating by the inclusion
> > > of fossils is solved and the flawed geologic column theory crumbles
> > > carrying Charlie Darwin with it.
> >
> > Your argument would be great if you could explain why all the mammal bones
> > are in the upper layers.
>
> They don't live at the bottom of the ocean, their density is less than
> shell fish, they drown in water and swim as long as they can.
Oh, so the flowering plants also swam until all the non flowering plants
had drowned? Did the grasses swim until the dinosaurs had drowned? Did the
mammals swim better than aquatic "dinosaurs"?
[snip]
> >
> > Oh, so setting a creature to illustrate a point is only bad if it
> > illustrates a concept of Evolution Theory?
>
> No, fraudently setting a creature to illustrate a non existant point is
> always bad if it is designed to advocate a fradulent concept in order to
> falsly advance a biased and unsupported Theory and claiming it to be fact
> based upon fraudently setting a creature to illustrate a non existant
> point.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Now this has what to do with evolution
theory? Are you saying that natural selection does not exist?
[snip]
> >
> > If mammal bones and reptile bones do not hydrologically sort into separate
> > layers then the hydrological sorting idea is falsified.
>
> Interesting, since they do, as you allude to above.
I did not allude to any such property. You have not described the
mechanism. Still waiting.