Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Young Earth Creation -Mitochondrial Eve falsifies it!
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Vurgil
Feb 25, 2012, 3:29:49 PM2/25/12
to
In article
<997120eb-b46e-4111...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> It looked to be a cakewalk for evolutionism
> believers. A simple analysis of mtDNA mutation
> rate would surely confirm their atheist claims of
> 'Out of Africa' millions of years ago. Instead, when
> the results came in...it correlated perfectly with
> the Mosaic account of Creation, an Eve of
> 4000 BC. So shattering that when they got around
> to publishing results, they actually tried to imbed
> disclaimers in the science article.
According to wiki:
Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,
most likely in East Africa, when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically
modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human
sub-species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
So that Liarboi Broiljab is only off on the age of Mitochondrial Eve by
a factor of 50, a mere matter of 199,600 years wrong. A mere 2% of her
actual age.
<997120eb-b46e-4111...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> It looked to be a cakewalk for evolutionism
> believers. A simple analysis of mtDNA mutation
> rate would surely confirm their atheist claims of
> 'Out of Africa' millions of years ago. Instead, when
> the results came in...it correlated perfectly with
> the Mosaic account of Creation, an Eve of
> 4000 BC. So shattering that when they got around
> to publishing results, they actually tried to imbed
> disclaimers in the science article.
According to wiki:
Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,
most likely in East Africa, when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically
modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human
sub-species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
So that Liarboi Broiljab is only off on the age of Mitochondrial Eve by
a factor of 50, a mere matter of 199,600 years wrong. A mere 2% of her
actual age.
Gladys Swager
Feb 25, 2012, 4:26:16 PM2/25/12
to
Barry OGrady
Feb 25, 2012, 4:39:45 PM2/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:26:16 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>Gladys Swager
=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>Gladys Swager
=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!
ilbe...@gmail.com
Feb 25, 2012, 4:41:23 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 2:29 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> In article
> <997120eb-b46e-4111-ab42-e8ea4b865...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, and Carbon 14 dating on ship Barnacles have placed them at 200
years old when they were still alive. My trust goes to the Bible
and not fallable Man. in the process of discovery .
> In article
> <997120eb-b46e-4111-ab42-e8ea4b865...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
years old when they were still alive. My trust goes to the Bible
and not fallable Man. in the process of discovery .
Free Lunch
Feb 25, 2012, 4:53:24 PM2/25/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:39:45 +1100, Barry OGrady
<ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:26:16 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
>You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
<ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:26:16 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
>You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
Free Lunch
Feb 25, 2012, 4:53:47 PM2/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:41:23 -0800 (PST), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Why would I ever believe anything you claim?
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Ken
Feb 25, 2012, 7:04:25 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 1:41 pm, "IlBenbuttfucked @gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
wrote this worthless load of crapola:
> Yes, and Carbon 14 dating on ship Barnacles have placed them at 200
> years old when they were still alive.
Then prove it, Fundy Fuckwadd.
Oh yeah
You NEVER EVER back up your worthless BULLSHIT, do you?
Where is your "life after death"?
Where is your "proof"?
Where are your "vast evidences"?
Where is your "supporting evidence"?
Where is all this "proven historical evidence"?
Where is all this "vast evidence of a personal nature"?
Where is all this "very compelling evidence"?
Where is all this "plenty of historical evidence"?
Where is all this "plenty of evidence"?
Where is all this "convincing evidence"?
Where is all this "obvious testable empirical evidence"?
Where is all this: "evidence for a global flood"?
Where is all this: "Plenty of emphirical (sic) evidence"?
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed as yet another
load of Daveshite
wrote this worthless load of crapola:
> Yes, and Carbon 14 dating on ship Barnacles have placed them at 200
> years old when they were still alive.
Oh yeah
You NEVER EVER back up your worthless BULLSHIT, do you?
Where is your "life after death"?
Where is your "proof"?
Where are your "vast evidences"?
Where is your "supporting evidence"?
Where is all this "proven historical evidence"?
Where is all this "vast evidence of a personal nature"?
Where is all this "very compelling evidence"?
Where is all this "plenty of historical evidence"?
Where is all this "plenty of evidence"?
Where is all this "convincing evidence"?
Where is all this "obvious testable empirical evidence"?
Where is all this: "evidence for a global flood"?
Where is all this: "Plenty of emphirical (sic) evidence"?
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed as yet another
load of Daveshite
Mike Painter
Feb 25, 2012, 7:12:54 PM2/25/12
to
IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
"I read a scientific article in 1979 concerning carbon dating of a living
barnacle(mollusk) on a ships hull, it was found to be 1500 years old, the
ship was only a couple decades old."
Usually crap like this is all over the fundy sites so they must have
abandoned it early on.
My two questions would be.
How did you do live testing and why
<snip>
>
> Yes, and Carbon 14 dating on ship Barnacles have placed them at 200
> years old when they were still alive. My trust goes to the Bible
> and not fallable Man. in the process of discovery .
Hard to find a reference for that but you messed up the age
> Yes, and Carbon 14 dating on ship Barnacles have placed them at 200
> years old when they were still alive. My trust goes to the Bible
> and not fallable Man. in the process of discovery .
"I read a scientific article in 1979 concerning carbon dating of a living
barnacle(mollusk) on a ships hull, it was found to be 1500 years old, the
ship was only a couple decades old."
Usually crap like this is all over the fundy sites so they must have
abandoned it early on.
My two questions would be.
How did you do live testing and why
Mike Painter
Feb 25, 2012, 7:14:10 PM2/25/12
to
Gladys Swager
Feb 25, 2012, 7:27:04 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
http://creation.com does not agree with your ideas.
> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
A lie is a false statement made in order to deceive. (Macquarie
Dictionary)
I have no intention of deceiving you or any other poster in this
newsgroup.
It is a matter of looking at all evidence,
at all statements that we can from others, other sources and comparing
them
n order to come to know the truth for as Jesus said,
(John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
free."
Gladys Swager
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 , Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>
What you really mean is that
>
> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>
http://creation.com does not agree with your ideas.
> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
Dictionary)
I have no intention of deceiving you or any other poster in this
newsgroup.
It is a matter of looking at all evidence,
at all statements that we can from others, other sources and comparing
them
n order to come to know the truth for as Jesus said,
(John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
free."
Gladys Swager
Free Lunch
Feb 25, 2012, 9:38:23 PM2/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:27:04 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 , Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>What you really mean is that
>http://creation.com does not agree with your ideas.
They do not agree with reality. They knowingly tell you things that are
false.
others.
>It is a matter of looking at all evidence,
>at all statements that we can from others, other sources and comparing
>them in order to come to know the truth for as Jesus said,
seeking truth at all. You are mocking what Jesus taught with your
refusal to learn.
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 , Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>What you really mean is that
>http://creation.com does not agree with your ideas.
false.
>
>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>
>A lie is a false statement made in order to deceive. (Macquarie
>Dictionary)
>I have no intention of deceiving you or any other poster in this
>newsgroup.
You have already deceived yourself and your repeat that deceit to
>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>
>A lie is a false statement made in order to deceive. (Macquarie
>Dictionary)
>I have no intention of deceiving you or any other poster in this
>newsgroup.
others.
>It is a matter of looking at all evidence,
>at all statements that we can from others, other sources and comparing
>(John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>free."
And you have chosen to believe lies that mislead you. You are not
>free."
seeking truth at all. You are mocking what Jesus taught with your
refusal to learn.
Free Lunch
Feb 25, 2012, 9:38:50 PM2/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:14:10 -0800, "Mike Painter"
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I've done similar.
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Buddythunder
Feb 25, 2012, 11:57:03 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 26, 10:41 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That is why you fail, my son.
wrote:
HVAC
Feb 26, 2012, 6:37:13 AM2/26/12
to
On 2/25/2012 7:27 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
> free."
> Gladys Swager
What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>
> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
> free."
> Gladys Swager
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Barry OGrady
Feb 26, 2012, 6:41:12 AM2/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:37:13 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/25/2012 7:27 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>> free."
>> Gladys Swager
>
>
>What if the truth is that you're a slave?
The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>On 2/25/2012 7:27 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>> free."
>> Gladys Swager
>
>
>What if the truth is that you're a slave?
HVAC
Feb 26, 2012, 9:51:33 AM2/26/12
to
On 2/26/2012 6:41 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>>>
>>> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>>> free."
>>
>>
>
>>>
>>> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>>> free."
>>
>>
>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>
> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
What if you're a muslum?
>
> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
DanielSan
Feb 26, 2012, 9:55:35 AM2/26/12
to
On 2/26/2012 6:51 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/26/2012 6:41 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>>>> free."
>>>
>>>
>>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>>
>> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>
> What if you're a muslum?
The Qur'an does not prescribe any Earthly punishment for apostasy. In
> On 2/26/2012 6:41 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>>>> free."
>>>
>>>
>>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>>
>> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>
> What if you're a muslum?
fact, the Qur'an protects it:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion..." --Qur'an 2:256
"There is no compulsion in religion." --al-Baqara, 256
HVAC
Feb 26, 2012, 11:46:32 AM2/26/12
to
On 2/26/2012 9:55 AM, DanielSan wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>>>
>>> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>>
>> What if you're a muslum?
>
> The Qur'an does not prescribe any Earthly punishment for apostasy. In
> fact, the Qur'an protects it:
>
> "Let there be no compulsion in religion..." --Qur'an 2:256
> "There is no compulsion in religion." --al-Baqara, 256
Perhaps the only sin in muslum is to be a female.
>
>>>>
>>>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>>>
>>> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>>
>> What if you're a muslum?
>
> The Qur'an does not prescribe any Earthly punishment for apostasy. In
> fact, the Qur'an protects it:
>
> "Let there be no compulsion in religion..." --Qur'an 2:256
> "There is no compulsion in religion." --al-Baqara, 256
DanielSan
Feb 26, 2012, 4:35:35 PM2/26/12
to
On 2/26/2012 8:46 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/26/2012 9:55 AM, DanielSan wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>>>>
>>>> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>>>
>>> What if you're a muslum?
>>
>> The Qur'an does not prescribe any Earthly punishment for apostasy. In
>> fact, the Qur'an protects it:
>>
>> "Let there be no compulsion in religion..." --Qur'an 2:256
>> "There is no compulsion in religion." --al-Baqara, 256
>
> Perhaps the only sin in muslum is to be a female.
Not even that, really. Sure, the Qur'an has women as less than men,
> On 2/26/2012 9:55 AM, DanielSan wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>>>>
>>>> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>>>
>>> What if you're a muslum?
>>
>> The Qur'an does not prescribe any Earthly punishment for apostasy. In
>> fact, the Qur'an protects it:
>>
>> "Let there be no compulsion in religion..." --Qur'an 2:256
>> "There is no compulsion in religion." --al-Baqara, 256
>
> Perhaps the only sin in muslum is to be a female.
but, then again, so does the Bible. Muslim countries were among the
first to have female heads of state and such.
Barry OGrady
Feb 26, 2012, 6:26:40 PM2/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:51:33 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/26/2012 6:41 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>>>> free."
>>>
>>>
>>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>>
>> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>
>What if you're a muslum?
The truth will set you free from Islam?
>On 2/26/2012 6:41 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> (John 8 : 32) You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
>>>> free."
>>>
>>>
>>> What if the truth is that you're a slave?
>>
>> The truth will set you free from Christianity.
>
>What if you're a muslum?
Gladys Swager
Feb 26, 2012, 7:36:27 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>
> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>
> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>
> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
Gladys Swager
DanielSan
Feb 26, 2012, 7:39:29 PM2/26/12
to
Sorry, but the content you requested could not be found.
Check you have entered the url correctly. You could try using the search
function with key words (top right).
Barry OGrady
Feb 26, 2012, 7:43:35 PM2/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>
>I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
You have acknowledged certain things yet you continue
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>
>I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
to say false things about them. That is lying.
>http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
Free Lunch
Feb 26, 2012, 11:53:56 PM2/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
chosen to be a liar.
>Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
chosen to be a liar.
>Gladys Swager
Painius
Feb 27, 2012, 12:06:59 AM2/27/12
to
Fixed.
Welcome.
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"There is buried treasure within your fear!"
Gladys Swager
Feb 27, 2012, 12:55:50 AM2/27/12
to
On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
CMI.
> >I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>
> >http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>
> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
> chosen to be a liar.
>
And you are so 'sold-on- evolutionary explanations taht you cannot
see
the incongruities within their work.
How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
And you have not cited where according to you I have lied.
ie when? where? how? and why?
Is it that you just use the term 'liar' when a person does not agree
with you? .
Gladys Swager
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
> >On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> >> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>
> >> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>
Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> >> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>
> >> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>
CMI.
> >I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>
> >http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>
> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
> chosen to be a liar.
>
see
the incongruities within their work.
How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
And you have not cited where according to you I have lied.
ie when? where? how? and why?
Is it that you just use the term 'liar' when a person does not agree
with you? .
Gladys Swager
DanielSan
Feb 27, 2012, 1:05:50 AM2/27/12
to
On 2/26/2012 9:06 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
> <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>>> You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>>
>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>> I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>> http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>> Gladys Swager
>
> http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation
>
> Fixed.
>
> Welcome.
>
There is a portion I'd like to point out here:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
> <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>>> You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>>
>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>> I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>> http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>> Gladys Swager
>
> http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation
>
> Fixed.
>
> Welcome.
>
The page talks about logical fallacies. Skip down to the one with
homologous structures:
"1) If organisms X and Y have a common ancestor, they will have
homologous structures;
2) X and Y have homologous structures;
Therefore) X and Y have a common ancestor.
...The conclusion is not proven—the homologous structures could be due
to a common designer, leaving a 'biotic message' that there is a single
designer of life rather than many."
Indeed, there is an "affirming the consequent" fallacy but that's not
what this argument was using. What the author of this website means is
the "ignoring a common cause" fallacy where A and B are likely to be
seen together but common cause C is ignored.
For example:
John runs a fever. Soon thereafter, red spots begin to appear on his
skin. Therefore, John thinks, that the fever caused the red spots so
all he has to do is to reduce the fever, ignoring the common cause: the
virus causing both the fever and the red spots.
But the page goes right around the bend and invents a "common cause C"
for which there's no evidence (i.e., "could be due to a common designer").
To illustrate this, let's change the claims around a bit:
"1) The Earth orbits around the sun
2) The Moon orbits around the Earth
Therefore) Celestial bodies orbit each other due to gravity.
...The conclusion is not proven-the orbiting could be due to the
celestial bodies wanting to orbit."
Yeesh.
DanielSan
Feb 27, 2012, 1:06:48 AM2/27/12
to
On 2/26/2012 9:55 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>>> On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>>>>> You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
> Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
> CMI.
>
>>> I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>>> http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
>> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
>> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
>> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
>> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
>> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
>> chosen to be a liar.
>>
> And you are so 'sold-on- evolutionary explanations taht you cannot
> see
Except that I can see them.
> On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>>> On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>>>>> You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
> Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
> CMI.
>
>>> I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>>> http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
>> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
>> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
>> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
>> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
>> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
>> chosen to be a liar.
>>
> And you are so 'sold-on- evolutionary explanations taht you cannot
> see
> the incongruities within their work.
> How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
Barry OGrady
Feb 27, 2012, 4:10:17 AM2/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:39:29 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 26/2/2012 4:36 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>>> You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>>
>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>> I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
You are knowingly telling lies.
>> http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>
>404: Not Found
>Sorry, but the content you requested could not be found.
That's Gladys way of admitting God is not found.
>Check you have entered the url correctly. You could try using the search
>function with key words (top right).
Gladys refuses to use copy and paste, probably because it was
recommended by those atheists.
<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 26/2/2012 4:36 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>>> You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>>
>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>> I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>> http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>
>404: Not Found
>Sorry, but the content you requested could not be found.
>Check you have entered the url correctly. You could try using the search
>function with key words (top right).
recommended by those atheists.
Barry OGrady
Feb 27, 2012, 4:12:14 AM2/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:53:56 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>Gladys Swager
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>>
>>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>>
>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>>I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>>http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>
>The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
>those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
>to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
>refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
>religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
>your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
>chosen to be a liar.
Gladys could be a robot.
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>>
>>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>>
>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>>I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>>http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>
>The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
>those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
>to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
>refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
>religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
>your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
>chosen to be a liar.
>>Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
Feb 27, 2012, 4:16:26 AM2/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:55:50 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>> >> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
>CMI.
All of creation.com.
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>> >> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
>CMI.
>> >I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>> >http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
>> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
>> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
>> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
>> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
>> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
>> chosen to be a liar.
>>
>And you are so 'sold-on- evolutionary explanations taht you cannot
>see the incongruities within their work.
You are lying again.
>How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
Why do you continue to claim creation from nothing?
>And you have not cited where according to you I have lied.
>ie when? where? how? and why?
>Is it that you just use the term 'liar' when a person does not agree
>with you? .
are not true.
Barry OGrady
Feb 27, 2012, 4:18:09 AM2/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:06:59 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com>
>Welcome.
>
>--
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>>
>>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>>
>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>>I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>>http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>>Gladys Swager
>
>http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation
>
>Fixed.
That's no better.
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>>
>>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>>
>>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>>I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>>http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>>Gladys Swager
>
>http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation
>
>Fixed.
>Welcome.
>
>--
HVAC
Feb 27, 2012, 7:31:47 AM2/27/12
to
On 2/27/2012 12:55 AM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
>>
> And you are so 'sold-on- evolutionary explanations taht you cannot
> see
> the incongruities within their work.
> How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
Good morning, Gladys-
>
>>
> And you are so 'sold-on- evolutionary explanations taht you cannot
> see
> the incongruities within their work.
> How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
Let me answer your question with one of my own...
Who brought god into existence?
duke
Feb 27, 2012, 8:30:30 AM2/27/12
to
>On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>
>I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
But you sure don't spend anytime making sure your sources are accurate and
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>
>I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
truthful.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
Vurgil
Feb 27, 2012, 11:59:32 AM2/27/12
to
In article
<c854691e-dda5-4bb4...@w1g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
Couple dozen creationists whining, but not ONE
able to refute the NATURE journal study.
Evolution confirmed.
It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before
creationism can disprove Evolution.
<c854691e-dda5-4bb4...@w1g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
Couple dozen creationists whining, but not ONE
able to refute the NATURE journal study.
Evolution confirmed.
It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before
creationism can disprove Evolution.
Vurgil
Feb 27, 2012, 3:40:01 PM2/27/12
to
In article
<ddf67161-8096-47a4...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> They tried for decades to conceal the soft tissue
> and redblood cell products in Trex, but now that
> that is known, it goes a long way to confirming
> the Evolutionary Account of Life on Earth.
The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
nothing at all about such souls.
Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
<ddf67161-8096-47a4...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> They tried for decades to conceal the soft tissue
> and redblood cell products in Trex, but now that
> that is known, it goes a long way to confirming
> the Evolutionary Account of Life on Earth.
The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
nothing at all about such souls.
Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
Gladys Swager
Feb 27, 2012, 6:21:51 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 28, 7:40 am, Vurgil wrote:
It is evident in my own family in which my brother and I are much
alike the same same-sex parents as photographs of us indicate.
But where has it been demonstrated that one species changed
into anoher species over time? .
> But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
> concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> nothing at all about such souls.
> Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
> and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
> So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
> part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
There are persons who want Evolution to be true, but where is the
evidence
apart from what has been written in textbooks?
Gladys Swager
> Loirbaj wrote:
> > They tried for decades to conceal the soft tissue
> > and redblood cell products in Trex, but now that
> > that is known, it goes a long way to confirming
> > the Evolutionary Account of Life on Earth.
>
> The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>
> Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
> evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>
I accept change within a species in each procreation.
> > They tried for decades to conceal the soft tissue
> > and redblood cell products in Trex, but now that
> > that is known, it goes a long way to confirming
> > the Evolutionary Account of Life on Earth.
>
> The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>
> Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
> evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>
It is evident in my own family in which my brother and I are much
alike the same same-sex parents as photographs of us indicate.
But where has it been demonstrated that one species changed
into anoher species over time? .
> But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
> concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> nothing at all about such souls.
> Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
> and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
> So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
> part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
evidence
apart from what has been written in textbooks?
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
Feb 27, 2012, 6:44:45 PM2/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:21:51 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 7:40 am, Vurgil wrote:
>> Loirbaj wrote:
>> > They tried for decades to conceal the soft tissue
>> > and redblood cell products in Trex, but now that
>> > that is known, it goes a long way to confirming
>> > the Evolutionary Account of Life on Earth.
>>
>> The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>>
>> Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
>> evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>>
>I accept change within a species in each procreation.
>It is evident in my own family in which my brother and I are much
>alike the same same-sex parents as photographs of us indicate.
>But where has it been demonstrated that one species changed
>into anoher species over time? .
The fossil record?
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 7:40 am, Vurgil wrote:
>> Loirbaj wrote:
>> > They tried for decades to conceal the soft tissue
>> > and redblood cell products in Trex, but now that
>> > that is known, it goes a long way to confirming
>> > the Evolutionary Account of Life on Earth.
>>
>> The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>>
>> Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
>> evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>>
>I accept change within a species in each procreation.
>It is evident in my own family in which my brother and I are much
>alike the same same-sex parents as photographs of us indicate.
>But where has it been demonstrated that one species changed
>into anoher species over time? .
>> But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
>> concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
>> nothing at all about such souls.
>> Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
>> and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>> So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
>> part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
>
>There are persons who want Evolution to be true, but where is the
>evidence apart from what has been written in textbooks?
but accept that it is because of overwhelming evidence.
>Gladys Swager
Free Lunch
Feb 27, 2012, 7:57:47 PM2/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:55:50 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>> >> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
>CMI.
None of their scientific claims are trustworthy because they have said
that they will not do science that disagrees with their view about the
Bible.
>> >I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>> >http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
>> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
>> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
>> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
>> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
>> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
>> chosen to be a liar.
>>
>And you are so 'sold-on- evolutionary explanations taht you cannot
>see
>the incongruities within their work.
>How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
>And you have not cited where according to you I have lied.
>ie when? where? how? and why?
>Is it that you just use the term 'liar' when a person does not agree
>with you? .
No, I only use it when someone intentionally tells a falsehood to me or
refuses to correct a false claim after being informed that their claim
is false and why their claim is false.
You are a liar. CMI is a gaggle of liars. I know they will not try to
sue me for calling them liars because they know they are lying.
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Feb 26, 8:53 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >> >You have been told creation.com is not your friend.
>>
>> >> But she likes that their lies back up her lies.
>>
>Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
>CMI.
that they will not do science that disagrees with their view about the
Bible.
>> >I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>> >http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
>> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
>> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
>> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
>> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
>> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
>> chosen to be a liar.
>>
>And you are so 'sold-on- evolutionary explanations taht you cannot
>see
>the incongruities within their work.
>How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
>And you have not cited where according to you I have lied.
>ie when? where? how? and why?
>Is it that you just use the term 'liar' when a person does not agree
>with you? .
refuses to correct a false claim after being informed that their claim
is false and why their claim is false.
You are a liar. CMI is a gaggle of liars. I know they will not try to
sue me for calling them liars because they know they are lying.
Mitchell Holman
Feb 27, 2012, 8:36:43 PM2/27/12
to
Gladys Swager <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c9b943b6-7b12-4835-8490-
b80291...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 28, 7:40 am, Vurgil wrote:
>> Loirbaj wrote:
>> > They tried for decades to conceal the soft tissue
>> > and redblood cell products in Trex, but now that
>> > that is known, it goes a long way to confirming
>> > the Evolutionary Account of Life on Earth.
>>
>> The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>>
>> Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming
physical
>> evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>>
> I accept change within a species in each procreation.
> It is evident in my own family in which my brother and I are much
> alike the same same-sex parents as photographs of us indicate.
> But where has it been demonstrated that one species changed
> into anoher species over time? .
>
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
>> But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
>> concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general,
say
>> nothing at all about such souls.
>> Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one
hand,
>> and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>> So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
>> part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
>
> There are persons who want Evolution to be true, but where is the
> evidence
> apart from what has been written in textbooks?
Ever gotten a vaccination?
Ever taken an antibiotic?
Then you believe in evolution.
b80291...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 28, 7:40 am, Vurgil wrote:
>> Loirbaj wrote:
>> > They tried for decades to conceal the soft tissue
>> > and redblood cell products in Trex, but now that
>> > that is known, it goes a long way to confirming
>> > the Evolutionary Account of Life on Earth.
>>
>> The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>>
>> Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming
physical
>> evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>>
> I accept change within a species in each procreation.
> It is evident in my own family in which my brother and I are much
> alike the same same-sex parents as photographs of us indicate.
> But where has it been demonstrated that one species changed
> into anoher species over time? .
>
>> But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
>> concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general,
say
>> nothing at all about such souls.
>> Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one
hand,
>> and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>> So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
>> part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
>
> There are persons who want Evolution to be true, but where is the
> evidence
> apart from what has been written in textbooks?
Ever taken an antibiotic?
Then you believe in evolution.
Gladys Swager
Feb 27, 2012, 9:15:36 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote
that disagrees with their view about Evolution!!!???
have
changed from one to another in increasing complexity until we have the
organisms
in the world today minus, of course, those which have become extinct.
And it has all be by naturalistic processes.
> >And you are so 'sold-on'- evolutionary explanations that you cannot
>
I would think they have more to do with the moneys given to them in
donations
and profits from the sales of books etc. But they would be in a better
position
that I am to make a statement on that issue. I am not an official
spokesperson.
The fact is that you are making claims that you can't sustain, but
you ignore that knowing if you can get others, especially
the young, hooked onto you evolutionary 'goo-to-you-from-the-zoo theme
from an early age they might provide a 'cheer-lobby' for you.
The tree of life featured in the 1963 NSW Science for High School
Students
(ie from bacteria and fungai with a small offshoot for viruses to
branches
at the top for different plants, insects and animals has been changed
sometime, maybe in the 1990's to cladograms (branches)
naming certain organisms from the prior ancestor.
So there is now no tree of life only broken off branches.
- a step in the direction of the views of the Creation scientists.
And please tell me what value is there scientifically
in organising anmal life in trees and cladograms
when it is not possible to scientifically test in preset time
that the lower forms (so designated) actually did evolve
into the higher forms at sometime in past ages?
Gladys Swager
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote
> >On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
> >Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
> >CMI.
>
> None of their scientific claims are trustworthy because they have said
> that they will not do science that disagrees with their view about the
> Bible.
>
And the Evolutionists say, ...'they 'will not do science
> >Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
> >CMI.
>
> None of their scientific claims are trustworthy because they have said
> that they will not do science that disagrees with their view about the
> Bible.
>
that disagrees with their view about Evolution!!!???
>
> >> >I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>
> >> >http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>
> >> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
> >> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
> >> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
> >> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
> >> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
> >> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
> >> chosen to be a liar.
>
I reject evolution because it is nonsense to say that living organisms
> >> >I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>
> >> >http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>
> >> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
> >> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
> >> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
> >> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
> >> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
> >> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
> >> chosen to be a liar.
>
have
changed from one to another in increasing complexity until we have the
organisms
in the world today minus, of course, those which have become extinct.
And it has all be by naturalistic processes.
> >And you are so 'sold-on'- evolutionary explanations that you cannot
> >see the incongruities within their work.
> >How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
> >And you have not cited where according to you I have lied.
> >ie when? where? how? and why?
> >Is it that you just use the term 'liar' when a person does not agree
> >with you? .
>
> No, I only use it when someone intentionally tells a falsehood to me or
> refuses to correct a false claim after being informed that their claim
> is false and why their claim is false.
>
> You are a liar. CMI is a gaggle of liars. I know they will not try to
> sue me for calling them liars because they know they are lying.-
> >How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
> >And you have not cited where according to you I have lied.
> >ie when? where? how? and why?
> >Is it that you just use the term 'liar' when a person does not agree
> >with you? .
>
> No, I only use it when someone intentionally tells a falsehood to me or
> refuses to correct a false claim after being informed that their claim
> is false and why their claim is false.
>
> You are a liar. CMI is a gaggle of liars. I know they will not try to
>
I would think they have more to do with the moneys given to them in
donations
and profits from the sales of books etc. But they would be in a better
position
that I am to make a statement on that issue. I am not an official
spokesperson.
The fact is that you are making claims that you can't sustain, but
you ignore that knowing if you can get others, especially
the young, hooked onto you evolutionary 'goo-to-you-from-the-zoo theme
from an early age they might provide a 'cheer-lobby' for you.
The tree of life featured in the 1963 NSW Science for High School
Students
(ie from bacteria and fungai with a small offshoot for viruses to
branches
at the top for different plants, insects and animals has been changed
sometime, maybe in the 1990's to cladograms (branches)
naming certain organisms from the prior ancestor.
So there is now no tree of life only broken off branches.
- a step in the direction of the views of the Creation scientists.
And please tell me what value is there scientifically
in organising anmal life in trees and cladograms
when it is not possible to scientifically test in preset time
that the lower forms (so designated) actually did evolve
into the higher forms at sometime in past ages?
Gladys Swager
Free Lunch
Feb 27, 2012, 9:34:44 PM2/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:15:36 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote
>> >On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
>> >CMI.
>>
>> None of their scientific claims are trustworthy because they have said
>> that they will not do science that disagrees with their view about the
>> Bible.
>>
>And the Evolutionists say, ...'they 'will not do science
>that disagrees with their view about Evolution!!!???
Bull.
[rest of spew showing that Gladys worships lies deleted]
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote
>> >On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
>> >CMI.
>>
>> None of their scientific claims are trustworthy because they have said
>> that they will not do science that disagrees with their view about the
>> Bible.
>>
>And the Evolutionists say, ...'they 'will not do science
>that disagrees with their view about Evolution!!!???
[rest of spew showing that Gladys worships lies deleted]
Mitchell Holman
Feb 27, 2012, 10:18:16 PM2/27/12
to
Gladys Swager <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fff9ba16-ff35-4ae5...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
transitional life forms in the rock strata?
Did the creatures caught in the La Brea
Tar pit never exist?
Barry OGrady
Feb 28, 2012, 12:33:39 AM2/28/12
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:34:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Gladys has the advantage that she doesn't need to
make sense. Have you noticed she is getting worse
in her old age? She has acknowledged that the origin
of life has nothing to do with evolution yet she insists
on repeating the claim. That makes her a liar rather
than simply deluded.
wrote:
make sense. Have you noticed she is getting worse
in her old age? She has acknowledged that the origin
of life has nothing to do with evolution yet she insists
on repeating the claim. That makes her a liar rather
than simply deluded.
Barry OGrady
Feb 28, 2012, 12:34:42 AM2/28/12
to
Devils Advocaat
Feb 28, 2012, 12:55:17 AM2/28/12
to
There are persons who want Creation to be true, but where is the
evidence apart from what has been written in the Bible?
Now if you reject evolution by your own reasoning, then by that same
reasoning you have to reject creation too.
Barry OGrady
Feb 28, 2012, 5:23:38 AM2/28/12
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:15:36 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote
>> >On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
>> >CMI.
>>
>> None of their scientific claims are trustworthy because they have said
>> that they will not do science that disagrees with their view about the
>> Bible.
>>
>And the Evolutionists say, ...'they 'will not do science
>that disagrees with their view about Evolution!!!???
Quite the reverse. Evolutionists go where the evidence
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager wrote
>> >On Feb 27, 3:53 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
> >> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >Then just quote what are the lies that have been given by those at
>> >CMI.
>>
>> None of their scientific claims are trustworthy because they have said
>> that they will not do science that disagrees with their view about the
>> Bible.
>>
>And the Evolutionists say, ...'they 'will not do science
>that disagrees with their view about Evolution!!!???
leads. Creationists try to modify reality to fit their mythology.
>> >> >I am not lying = knowingly telling an untruth.
>>
>> >> >http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind--logic-and-creation
>>
>> >> The people at Creation Ministries know they are lying. You have ignored
>> >> those who have explained why it is clear that they are lying. You refuse
>> >> to acknowledge the facts. You are dishonest about these things. You also
>> >> refuse to acknowledge that your rejection of evolution is purely
>> >> religious, that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up
>> >> your falsehoods. Yes, you are knowingly telling falsehoods. You have
>> >> chosen to be a liar.
>>
>I reject evolution because it is nonsense to say that living organisms have
>changed from one to another in increasing complexity until we have the
>organisms in the world today minus, of course, those which have become
>extinct.
>And it has all be by naturalistic processes.
>> >And you are so 'sold-on'- evolutionary explanations that you cannot
>> >see the incongruities within their work.
>> >How can somethings be brought into existence by nobody?
>
>> >And you have not cited where according to you I have lied.
>> >ie when? where? how? and why?
>> >Is it that you just use the term 'liar' when a person does not agree
>> >with you? .
>>
>> No, I only use it when someone intentionally tells a falsehood to me or
>> refuses to correct a false claim after being informed that their claim
>> is false and why their claim is false.
>>
>> You are a liar. CMI is a gaggle of liars. I know they will not try to
>> sue me for calling them liars because they know they are lying.-
>>
>I would think they have more to do with the moneys given to them in
>donations and profits from the sales of books etc.
>But they would be in a better position
>that I am to make a statement on that issue. I am not an official
>spokesperson.
>The fact is that you are making claims that you can't sustain, but
>you ignore that knowing if you can get others, especially
>the young, hooked onto you evolutionary 'goo-to-you-from-the-zoo theme
>from an early age they might provide a 'cheer-lobby' for you.
>The tree of life featured in the 1963 NSW Science for High School
>Students (ie from bacteria and fungai with a small offshoot for viruses to
>branches at the top for different plants, insects and animals has been changed
>sometime, maybe in the 1990's to cladograms (branches)
> naming certain organisms from the prior ancestor.
>So there is now no tree of life only broken off branches.
>- a step in the direction of the views of the Creation scientists.
>
>And please tell me what value is there scientifically
>in organising anmal life in trees and cladograms
>when it is not possible to scientifically test in preset time
>that the lower forms (so designated) actually did evolve
>into the higher forms at sometime in past ages?
>Gladys Swager
HVAC
Feb 28, 2012, 7:26:50 AM2/28/12
to
On 2/27/2012 9:15 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
>>
> I reject evolution because it is nonsense to say that living organisms
> have
> changed from one to another in increasing complexity until we have the
> organisms
> in the world today
What I don't understand is why any religionist would take on this fight.
>
>>
> I reject evolution because it is nonsense to say that living organisms
> have
> changed from one to another in increasing complexity until we have the
> organisms
> in the world today
I am not a believer, but if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't take on
a battle that was over long ago.... Like evolution.
> minus, of course, those which have become extinct.
> And it has all be by naturalistic processes.
that some animals have gone extinct. Didn't god make the world perfect?
Vurgil
Feb 28, 2012, 11:07:04 PM2/28/12
to
In article
<fbe3a7dc-28db-42f6...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Still NO atheist even tries to explain
It is not the obligation of theists to explain.
It is the obligation of those who wish atheists to cease being theists
to provide valid reasons for such cessation.
So far none of those who wish atheists to cease being theists have been
able to provide any valid reasons for such cessation.
Even Einstein stayed atheistic:
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from J. Dispentiere, an
Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New
Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was despaired by
a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious.
Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science
can reveal it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views
<fbe3a7dc-28db-42f6...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Still NO atheist even tries to explain
It is not the obligation of theists to explain.
It is the obligation of those who wish atheists to cease being theists
to provide valid reasons for such cessation.
So far none of those who wish atheists to cease being theists have been
able to provide any valid reasons for such cessation.
Even Einstein stayed atheistic:
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from J. Dispentiere, an
Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New
Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was despaired by
a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious.
Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science
can reveal it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views
0 new messages