Belief?
SJAB1958
universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
evidence of this divine influence.
But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
scientist.
Strange or what?
SortingItOut
Strange? Yes. But I think your second observation is the inevitable
result of your first observation when the belief in creationism is
total and unwavering. Evidence limits freedom of belief. The ideal
world for them is a world where there is no evidence of anything at all
regarding origins. They can live in a world where beliefs reign. They
are uncomfortable in a world where they have to yield to reality.
NashtOn
You're full of crap.
Fundies have no problem with science but when it comes to the dogma of
evolution (DoE), given the dearth of evidence to support it, one needn't
be a fundamentalist Christian in order to repudiate it.
From the lack of evidence to support abiogenesis, all the way to the
myriad hoaxes in paleontology, to the scant data in the genes and to the
flagrant scarcity of any tangible benefit to mankind-with the exception
of how it readily supports a moral relativists' agenda and naturalists'
ideological proclivities-DoE is as useless as a tit on a bull.
Nicolas
Lee Oswald Ving
nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
> You're full of crap.
Big talk from someone who immediately conflates abiogenesis with evolution.
What sect is it that you belong to that requires absolute dishonesty again?
John Baker
For the creationist, when it comes to evolution, no evidence is good
enough. However, when it comes to their religious beliefs, no evidence
is good enough. <G>
Augray
Such as?
> to the scant data in the genes and to the
>flagrant scarcity of any tangible benefit to mankind-with the exception
>of how it readily supports a moral relativists' agenda and naturalists'
>ideological proclivities
How does it do that?
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:D9Jaf.118778$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Nonsense. Creationists have a problem with evolutionary theory because it
is evidence against the literal reading of the bible. That's all. If that
were not the case, then why is there no argument about the 'dogma' of
Quantum Mechanics, the Theory of Relativity or Chemistry? All of these
disciplines have much evidence, but have gaps and room for additional
evidence.
You can live in your little world of denial and hyperbole, but you are
fooling no one except for those that would rather not use their mind.
JR
>
> Nicolas
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You're full of crap.
> Fundies have no problem with science but when it comes to the dogma of
> evolution (DoE), given the dearth of evidence to support it, one needn't
> be a fundamentalist Christian in order to repudiate it.
There are tons of evidence to support it. Genetics and molecular biology
are very well supported by the experimental and empirical evidence.
There is less evidence supporting string theory than genetics, but I do
not hear any Fundies screaming about string theory.
Bob Kolker
Dick C
> SortingItOut wrote:
>> SJAB1958 wrote:
>>
>>>So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
>>>universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
>>>evidence of this divine influence.
>>>
>>>But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
>>>abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
>>>when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
>>>that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
>>>of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
>>>scientist.
>>>
>>>Strange or what?
>>
>>
>
> You're full of crap.
> Fundies have no problem with science but when it comes to the dogma of
> evolution (DoE), given the dearth of evidence to support it, one needn't
> be a fundamentalist Christian in order to repudiate it.
First ot all, fundies reject all science that does not match their
interpretation of their holy book. And that includes major principles
of Physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and paleontology. And they
duck the rejection of science by linking every thing to evolution.
And no, one does not need to be a fundie to refute the TOE, but then
fundies do not refute, or even disprove it. All they do is reject it
by passing on lies about it.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Chimp
> For the creationist, when it comes to evolution, no evidence is good
> enough. However, when it comes to their religious beliefs, no evidence
> is good enough. <G>
You deserve a prize for that one!
Chimp
F. Frederick Skitty
Oxidized
<snip>
>DoE is as useless as a tit on a bull.
But if a tit on a bull provided a reproductive advantage
to its species (eg the calf could suckle from the bull
as well as from the cow, allowing more calves to survive),
then the aforementioned tit would not be useless, eh?
Oxidized
Exponent
that creationists not demanding evidence for their own beliefs and
still demanding evidence from scientists is not a problem at all, as
far as consistency goes.
Creationists are almost universally religious, and almost universally
consider faith to be a highly important trait to possess. So for a
creationist to be self-consistent, he does not have a need for
evidence; faith will suffice, and in some cases is even preferred.
Scientists, on the other hand, when making scientific claims, are
highly dependent upon evidence. For a scientist to be self-consistent,
they have to be willing to present evidence or admit that their
hypothesis is not yet well founded (or in the case of contrary
evidence, their hypothesis is wrong).
So a creationist can point at a scientist and legitimately make the
claim that the scientist is not adhering to his own standards if he is
holding strongly to a hypothesis without having evidence. And this in
no way is in contradiction to the creationist's beliefs. It is a
matter of pointing out a lack of /self/-consistency.
Likewise, a scientist cannot point at a creationist and criticize them
on their belief despite a lack of evidence (/unless/ the creationist
also claims that evidence is important). Because the creationist is
still self-consistent. Now if a scientist wants to point at a
creationist and claim that the faith-over-evidence based approach is
wrong for other reasons, that's perfectly acceptable. But at that
point, the debate has gone off into other issues than the one that was
the point of this thread.
As an analogy, consider two people, Jim and Bob. Jim is a bit of a
utilitarian; for example, he's willing to steal from the rich and give
to the poor, so to speak. Bob, however, adheres to principles much
more strongly, and asserts that it is always wrong to steal, no matter
what.
So consider an emergency situation, where looting stores could very
easily save lots of lives by providing much needed food and water and
clothing supplies. Jim doesn't have to consider the situation for very
long; he takes the items and puts them to use. Bob doesn't have to
think very long either; he refuses to do so. (Let me note right now
that I'm not advocating one action or another.) But let's assume that
Bob sees the humanitarian crisis around him, and decides that something
indeed needs to be done, and loots some stores as well. Jim, seeing
this, and knowing Bob's stance on the issue of stealing, will likely at
some point mention the inconsistency to Bob, especially if afterwards
Bob continues to claim adherence to the no stealing ever rule. Even
though Bob did what Jim agreed with, Jim has the right to point out
Bob's inconsistency. Likewise, if Jim didn't loot the stores for fear
of being caught and punished, Bob could point out Jim's inconsistency,
where he put his own good above the good of the many, even though Jim's
actions (but not necessarily motives) were in agreement with Bob's
beliefs.
So the creationist has the perfect right to criticize any scientist
that is irrationally holding on to a hypothesis for reasons other than
evidence. (The disagreement, of course, is often over whether there is
evidence or not. The creationist will say there is none, the scientist
will say there is a bunch, but that's a seperate issue.) Of course,
scientists really don't know what to say about a bunch of creationists.
They claim that evidence isn't needed; faith is sufficient. Then they
claim that they have a bunch of evidence. And it gets rather
confusing. Now I don't know if there is necessarily a definite logical
contradiction in there, but it really starts to sound iffy. But also,
there are so many different creationists and intelligent design
supporters, and they're not all in agreement about most of the
sub-issues, so naturally, when we lump them into one big category, it
does sound quite contradictory.
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>Before the bashing of each side goes too far, I would like to suggest
>that creationists not demanding evidence for their own beliefs and
>still demanding evidence from scientists is not a problem at all, as
>far as consistency goes.
>
>Creationists are almost universally religious, and almost universally
>consider faith to be a highly important trait to possess. So for a
>creationist to be self-consistent, he does not have a need for
>evidence; faith will suffice, and in some cases is even preferred.
Listen, stupid, let me try to explain this for you, in a way
that maybe your two year old mind can understand.
It is not creationists attacking evolutionists. It is the
other way around and they even subscribe to Christian
news groups to do it.
It is evolutionists who continue to claim that they have
"mountains of evidence" and never providing it. You
know, like you just did.
>Scientists, on the other hand, when making scientific claims, are
>highly dependent upon evidence.
And that is why you don't have any evidence for evolution,
moron! You type a speech and send it out, as if it REPLACES
evidence and as if it, in of itself IS evidence. Well, it
isn't and you are batting zero.
Now either put up, or shut up!
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
What shall I render to the Lord
for all His benefits toward me?
I will take up the cup of salvation
and call upon the name of the Lord.
- Psalm 116:12-13
Libertarius
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2005 11:00:09 -0800, "Exponent" <aga...@gmail.com>
> spake thusly:
>
> >Before the bashing of each side goes too far, I would like to suggest
> >that creationists not demanding evidence for their own beliefs and
> >still demanding evidence from scientists is not a problem at all, as
> >far as consistency goes.
> >
> >Creationists are almost universally religious, and almost universally
> >consider faith to be a highly important trait to possess. So for a
> >creationist to be self-consistent, he does not have a need for
> >evidence; faith will suffice, and in some cases is even preferred.
>
> Listen, stupid,
> let me try to explain this for you,
===>An ignorant NITWIT claiming to "explain" something!
WOW!
> It is not creationists attacking evolutionists. It is the
> other way around and they even subscribe to Christian
> news groups to do it.
===>They simply try to counteract your efforts at
dumbing down the world.
> It is evolutionists who continue to claim that they have
> "mountains of evidence" and never providing it.
===>TONS of evidence has been provided, which
you simply continue to deny and ignore, in favor of your
Genesis fable about YHWH the Extraterrestrial, who
supposedly sculpted all animals and a man out of mud
and blew air ("spirit") into their noses.
He forgot to make a mate for the man, so he brought
him some animals, but the man had no taste for
bestiality, so YHWH the ET made a woman from him
out of a rib.
Now THAT is the kind of story a nitwit like you can
believe. -- L.
Exponent
While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory. I
found their justification of such claims of hypocrisy to be inadequate.
I was defending the creationist's right to criticize scientists who
advocate a theory without evidential justification. I honestly have no
idea why that upset you. Now I personally do think that scientists
have evidence, but like I said, that was a completely separate issue.
The people who immediately responded were basically saying that
creationists have no right to demand evidence from scientists, because
creationists often don't demand it from themselves; I consider this a
logical fallacy. So may I ask why it is you find this offensive?
Craig Franck
> Pastor Dave wrote:
> > "Exponent" spake thusly:
> >
> > >Before the bashing of each side goes too far, I would like to suggest
> > >that creationists not demanding evidence for their own beliefs and
> > >still demanding evidence from scientists is not a problem at all, as
> > >far as consistency goes.
> > Listen, stupid, let me try to explain this for you, in a way
> > that maybe your two year old mind can understand.
> While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
> support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
> view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
> merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory.
You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
intelligently about this issue. I doubt very seriously he even understood
your post. Holding Pastor Dave accountable for what he posts here is like
yelling at a dog for something it did two days ago: the dog has no clue as
to what's going on, and it just creates bad feelings.
You strike me as a thoughtful person. The fact that he would characterize
you as "stupid" and your post the product of a "two-year-old mind" shows
how intellectually (and possibly morally) bankrupt Pastor Dave really is.
> The people who immediately responded were basically saying that
> creationists have no right to demand evidence from scientists, because
> creationists often don't demand it from themselves; I consider this a
> logical fallacy. So may I ask why it is you find this offensive?
While it's true that religious beliefs and empirical beliefs are justified in two
totally different ways, many creationists believe there is empirical evidence
that demonstrates the universe is only a few thousand years old and
evolution is false.
Those who simply lay claim to Revelation are immune, but almost every-
one mixes the two up. People who say evolution is silly and "obviously
false" because there is no evidence do leave themselves open to the
question as to why their religious beliefs are not equally silly and obviously
false since they lack evidence as well.
This is more of a meta-question that simply saying "I don't need evidence
for my faith-beliefs" won't make go away since there is the question of why
they concluded this strategy might work, or why anyone not so inclined
should even bother to comprehend what they are saying much less give it
equal time.
This is the major flaw with most types of Romanticism: it's hard to see
how people with strictly feeling- or faith-based views on things can criticize
a person for inferring or acting on limited information when they have made
that the corner stone of their belief system.
Evolution is "correct" because it's the only rational inference. Back when
there was little or no evidence that thoughts had anything to do with the brain,
it was still the best possible inference. So I should be able to believe that
with zero evidence.
Anyway, we seem to be on the same side of the evolution issue. It would be
nice if Pastor Dave chimed in here with something intelligent so I'd have to
issue a retraction -- but don't hold your breath.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
scooter
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2005 11:00:09 -0800, "Exponent" <aga...@gmail.com>
> spake thusly:
>
> >Before the bashing of each side goes too far, I would like to suggest
> >that creationists not demanding evidence for their own beliefs and
> >still demanding evidence from scientists is not a problem at all, as
> >far as consistency goes.
> >
> >Creationists are almost universally religious, and almost universally
> >consider faith to be a highly important trait to possess. So for a
> >creationist to be self-consistent, he does not have a need for
> >evidence; faith will suffice, and in some cases is even preferred.
>
> Listen, stupid, let me try to explain this for you, in a way
> that maybe your two year old mind can understand.
>
> It is not creationists attacking evolutionists. It is the
> other way around and they even subscribe to Christian
> news groups to do it.
YEA!!! In fact, I went to a Christian sponsored propaganda fest the
other night complete with firey music, shocking pictures and rock show
like qualities. All designed to entice younger folks to join their
community. IT was a Blast!!! I stayed afterwards to let them try and
"convert me". They reminded me of jackals as they surrounded me to hurl
their righteousness upon me. I summarily dismantled the whole
presentation, refuted every argument and usurped their stranglehold on
two of their constituents. It was a great time had by all!!!
>
> It is evolutionists who continue to claim that they have
> "mountains of evidence" and never providing it. You
> know, like you just did.
>
>
> >Scientists, on the other hand, when making scientific claims, are
> >highly dependent upon evidence.
>
> And that is why you don't have any evidence for evolution,
> moron! You type a speech and send it out, as if it REPLACES
> evidence and as if it, in of itself IS evidence. Well, it
> isn't and you are batting zero.
>
> Now either put up, or shut up!
Yea!!! I don't know if you know this, but any University library has
untold "mountains" of books on the subject. And most are accessable to
the public!!!!
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
>support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
>view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
>merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory.
Well then, I misread and I owe you an apology,
so I apologize to you. Please forgive me.
Pastor Dave
<kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> spake thusly:
>
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2005 11:00:09 -0800, "Exponent" <aga...@gmail.com>
>> spake thusly:
>>
>> >Before the bashing of each side goes too far, I would like to suggest
>> >that creationists not demanding evidence for their own beliefs and
>> >still demanding evidence from scientists is not a problem at all, as
>> >far as consistency goes.
>> >
>> >Creationists are almost universally religious, and almost universally
>> >consider faith to be a highly important trait to possess. So for a
>> >creationist to be self-consistent, he does not have a need for
>> >evidence; faith will suffice, and in some cases is even preferred.
>>
>> Listen, stupid, let me try to explain this for you, in a way
>> that maybe your two year old mind can understand.
>>
>> It is not creationists attacking evolutionists. It is the
>> other way around and they even subscribe to Christian
>> news groups to do it.
>
>YEA!!! In fact, I went to a Christian sponsored propaganda fest the
>other night complete with firey music, shocking pictures and rock show
>like qualities. All designed to entice younger folks to join their
>community. IT was a Blast!!! I stayed afterwards to let them try and
>"convert me". They reminded me of jackals as they surrounded me to hurl
>their righteousness upon me. I summarily dismantled the whole
>presentation, refuted every argument and usurped their stranglehold on
>two of their constituents. It was a great time had by all!!!
Well, thank you stupid. You have proved that you are indeed
a moron who seeks to tear people away from their faith.
And as for your claim that you "dismantled the whole
presentation", no one with half a brain would believe you,
since you can't even provide one shred of this supposed
"mountain of evidence" you claim to have. <chuckle>
Pastor Dave
<craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>> While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
>> support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
>> view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
>> merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory.
>
>You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
>intelligently about this issue.
I am not the one claiming "a mountain of evidence"
and then demanding that creationists prove God,
when it is requested.
I.e.: I'm not the liar.
>People who say evolution is silly and "obviously
>false" because there is no evidence do leave themselves open to the
>question as to why their religious beliefs are not equally silly and obviously
>false since they lack evidence as well.
Thank you for lying again, stupid. The reality is, that YOU
PEOPLE claim that evolution is true and that it is
scientifically proved. Creationists RESPOND TO YOU,
requesting that "mountain of evidence" that you morons keep
claiming to have and then you idiots DECEITFULLY demand
answers to your attack on creationism, in place of that so
called "mountain of evidence" that YOU CLAIM TO HAVE.
Roger Tang
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said:
> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:55:21 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> <craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
>>> support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
>>> view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
>>> merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory.
>>
>> You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
>> intelligently about this issue.
>
> I am not the one claiming "a mountain of evidence"
> and then demanding that creationists prove God,
> when it is requested.
>
> I.e.: I'm not the liar.
Yes, you are.
What would you accept as evidence?
>
>
>
>> People who say evolution is silly and "obviously
>> false" because there is no evidence do leave themselves open to the
>> question as to why their religious beliefs are not equally silly and obviously
>> false since they lack evidence as well.
>
> Thank you for lying again, stupid. The reality is, that YOU
> PEOPLE claim that evolution is true and that it is
> scientifically proved. Creationists RESPOND TO YOU,
> requesting that "mountain of evidence" that you morons keep
> claiming to have and then you idiots DECEITFULLY demand
> answers to your attack on creationism, in place of that so
> called "mountain of evidence" that YOU CLAIM TO HAVE.
--
oi...@porkfilled.com
Producer, Porkfilled Players (www.porkfilled.com)
Roger Tang
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said:
Why are you turning people away from Christ, Pastor Dave?
You fool no one with your lies.
What a "mighty" witness you are for your faith....
T Pagano
>So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
>universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
>evidence of this divine influence.
Which creationists "insisted" that "they don't need to present any
evidence?" I'm not aware of any serious minded creationist who
asserts any such thing. SJAB1958 doesn't identify the creationist or
the written work from he which he supposedly derived it. As such his
accusation is without merit.
But what of his claim. Creationists do, in fact, presuppose that
biological life was created by design and each to its own kind. While
"kind" is not defined with precision these two presuppositions
nonetheless have empirical implications that can be sought in the
natural world.
The most important empirical implications of these two presuppositions
is that
1. there should be definite (and perhaps definable) limits to
biological change.
2. we should not see the emergence of nascent structures in the
living or the fossil world
3. all populations should be found in a "mature" state and no
"rudimentary" predecessors should be found.
These empirical implications stand in stark contrast to the empirical
implications of neoDarwinian evolution:
1. there are no definite or definable limits to biological change.
2. In principle we should see the emergence of nascent structures and
systems in both the living and the fossil world.
3. In principle we should be able to trace "mature" descendants to
predecessors in varying degrees of development as we proceed back in
the fossil record.
In fact, over the 800 million years of fossil record available we find
that the three empirical implications of the creationist model are
supported rather than the neoDarwinian one. We see in the living
world definite limits to the extent of biological change. The fossil
record shows "sudden appearance" and "stasis" NOT ubiquitous change.
And there is not a single instance either in the fossil record or the
living world of a "nascent" structure or system. The emergence of new
structures is never seen.
>But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
>abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
>when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
>that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
>of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
>scientist.
Creationists demands are justified. Yet here SJAB1958 seems to be
justifying the lack of evidence of Abiogenesis and justifying the lack
of concern for that evidence by secularists.
Even false theories have some true consequences and therefore can
garner some corroborative evidence. Newton's theory of gravitation
was one of the most corroborated theories of all time yet as a
universal theory it was contradicted by the evidence in some domains
and superceded by Einstein's. The point is that
evidence-----regardless of how much of it we amass-----is NO
guarrantee of the verisimilitude of any theory. Secularists don't
seem to understand this. They seem to be under the delusion that as
the level of corroborative evidence increases the probability of the
truthlikeness of a theory increases. There is no calculus of
probablity which shows any such thing.
So there is certainly some evidence of-----in a relatively small
domain---of the model labeled "Abiogenesis." However, our background
knowledge in biochemistry and geochemistry stand against all current
abiogenic models on the whole. Secularists are well aware of this and
attempt to distance neoDarwinism from it even though Abiogenesis is a
necessary and inseparable initial condition of neoDarwinian theory.
Secularists and atheists are going to have to do better than this...
Regards,
T Pagano
bob young
SJAB1958 wrote:
anyone that follows a primitive superstition is bound to behave strangely.
bob young
SortingItOut wrote:
and if the above is valid today, which of course it is, it would be even
more valid two thousand or so more years ago,
bob young
NashtOn wrote:
> SortingItOut wrote:
> > SJAB1958 wrote:
> >
> >>So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
> >>universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
> >>evidence of this divine influence.
> >>
> >>But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
> >>abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
> >>when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
> >>that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
> >>of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
> >>scientist.
> >>
> >>Strange or what?
> >
> >
> >
> > Strange? Yes. But I think your second observation is the inevitable
> > result of your first observation when the belief in creationism is
> > total and unwavering. Evidence limits freedom of belief. The ideal
> > world for them is a world where there is no evidence of anything at all
> > regarding origins. They can live in a world where beliefs reign. They
> > are uncomfortable in a world where they have to yield to reality.
> >
>
> You're full of crap.
Does the above remark make you feel:
1] Better than others
2] More powerful than ordinary folks
3] Clever [sic]
4] Intelligent [sic] [sic]
5] Just plain nasty
6] Rather arrogant
7] Badly raised
8] Suffering from a deep seated inferiority complex
9] Just plain rude
[tick any number of the above]
Tom McDonald
> On 2005-11-04 17:58:19 -0800, Pastor Dave
> <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said:
>
>
>>On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:55:21 GMT, "Craig Franck"
>><craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
>>>>support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
>>>>view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
>>>>merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory.
>>>
>>>You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
>>>intelligently about this issue.
>>
>>I am not the one claiming "a mountain of evidence"
>>and then demanding that creationists prove God,
>>when it is requested.
>>
>>I.e.: I'm not the liar.
>
>
> Yes, you are.
>
> What would you accept as evidence?
He will not accept any evidence that might open his eyes. If he
did, he would have to face the cess-pool of lies and hatred his
life has become.
If you are religious, pray for him. If you are not, consider
thinking of him as a person with a sickness that has him, rather
than the reverse.
<snip>
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> And as for your claim that you "dismantled the whole
> presentation", no one with half a brain would believe you,
> since you can't even provide one shred of this supposed
> "mountain of evidence" you claim to have. <chuckle>
Laugh it up, 'Pastor' boy. You have been presented with a
veritable piedmont of evidence; and references that, if you
really cared about the evidence, would lead you to a veritable
Himalaya of evidence.
Your laziness, cowardice or close-mindedness (or perhaps all
three) has kept you from honestly exploring the evidence that
*has been presented to you countless times.*
It would be honest for you to just say that you won't accept any
evidence in favor of evolution. Many people take that stance, and
don't pretend to curiosity, as you do.
But then, not many have ever found reason to accuse you of
honesty. God is not pleased with you for that. Perhaps you don't
care.
scooter
Your welcome, idiot. You have proved that you arew indeed a moron who
seeks nothing but to control peoples behavior by using the fear of
"god" and the exclusion of folk from their community in retribution for
non-conformists. You are truly a borg.
>
> And as for your claim that you "dismantled the whole
> presentation", no one with half a brain would believe you,
> since you can't even provide one shred of this supposed
> "mountain of evidence" you claim to have. <chuckle>
Thankfully, you havn't half a brain. Moreover, your reading
comprehension isn't very good either. I do not claim to have any
"mountain of evidence". As I said, go to any University library and you
can read it for yourself, idiot.
scooter
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:55:21 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> <craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>
>
> >> While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
> >> support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
> >> view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
> >> merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory.
> >
> >You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
> >intelligently about this issue.
>
> I am not the one claiming "a mountain of evidence"
> and then demanding that creationists prove God,
> when it is requested.
>
> I.e.: I'm not the liar.
>
>
>
> >People who say evolution is silly and "obviously
> >false" because there is no evidence do leave themselves open to the
> >question as to why their religious beliefs are not equally silly and obviously
> >false since they lack evidence as well.
>
> Thank you for lying again, stupid. The reality is, that YOU
> PEOPLE claim that evolution is true and that it is
> scientifically proved. Creationists RESPOND TO YOU,
> requesting that "mountain of evidence" that you morons keep
> claiming to have and then you idiots DECEITFULLY demand
> answers to your attack on creationism, in place of that so
> called "mountain of evidence" that YOU CLAIM TO HAVE.
Being stupid seems to be your specialty. Try going to a library, idiot.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
NashtOn wrote:
> SortingItOut wrote:
> > SJAB1958 wrote:
> >
> >>So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
> >>universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
> >>evidence of this divine influence.
> >>
> >>But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
> >>abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
> >>when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
> >>that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
> >>of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
> >>scientist.
> >>
> >>Strange or what?
> >
> >
> >
> > Strange? Yes. But I think your second observation is the inevitable
> > result of your first observation when the belief in creationism is
> > total and unwavering. Evidence limits freedom of belief. The ideal
> > world for them is a world where there is no evidence of anything at all
> > regarding origins. They can live in a world where beliefs reign. They
> > are uncomfortable in a world where they have to yield to reality.
> >
>
>
> You're full of crap.
> evolution (DoE), given the dearth of evidence to support it, one needn't
> be a fundamentalist Christian in order to repudiate it.
>
> From the lack of evidence to support abiogenesis, all the way to the
> myriad hoaxes in paleontology, to the scant data in the genes and to the
> flagrant scarcity of any tangible benefit to mankind-with the exception
> of how it readily supports a moral relativists' agenda and naturalists'
> ideological proclivities-DoE is as useless as a tit on a bull.
>
> Nicolas
Why are there trilobite fossils in mountaintops, but no lobsters or
crabs?
You have denials and vague accusations, but can get specific about
nothing.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Exponent wrote:
> Before the bashing of each side goes too far, I would like to suggest
> that creationists not demanding evidence for their own beliefs and
> still demanding evidence from scientists is not a problem at all, as
> far as consistency goes.
>
> Creationists are almost universally religious, and almost universally
> consider faith to be a highly important trait to possess. So for a
> creationist to be self-consistent, he does not have a need for
> evidence; faith will suffice, and in some cases is even preferred.
This is perhaps what he *should think. Yet they so often seem to want
the cachet of science (without doing the work), and so often use
"faith" or "religion" as insults, and call evolutionary science this.
>
> Scientists, on the other hand, when making scientific claims, are
> highly dependent upon evidence. For a scientist to be self-consistent,
> they have to be willing to present evidence or admit that their
> hypothesis is not yet well founded (or in the case of contrary
> evidence, their hypothesis is wrong).
Yes.
>
> So a creationist can point at a scientist and legitimately make the
> claim that the scientist is not adhering to his own standards if he is
> holding strongly to a hypothesis without having evidence. And this in
> no way is in contradiction to the creationist's beliefs. It is a
> matter of pointing out a lack of /self/-consistency.
Yet they really have no examples of this, unless they can find a
non-representative quack. Scientific hypotheses do not last very long
if they are contrary to *significant bodies of evidencee.
>
> Likewise, a scientist cannot point at a creationist and criticize them
> on their belief despite a lack of evidence (/unless/ the creationist
> also claims that evidence is important).
We can if they claim that their belief in X is scientific, or make any
specific claim contrary to fact.
> Because the creationist is
> still self-consistent. Now if a scientist wants to point at a
> creationist and claim that the faith-over-evidence based approach is
> wrong for other reasons, that's perfectly acceptable. But at that
> point, the debate has gone off into other issues than the one that was
> the point of this thread.
Correct.
>
<snip analogy>
>
> So the creationist has the perfect right to criticize any scientist
> that is irrationally holding on to a hypothesis for reasons other than
> evidence.
They do not criticize such as quickly or thoroughly as other
scientists.
> (The disagreement, of course, is often over whether there is
> evidence or not. The creationist will say there is none, the scientist
> will say there is a bunch, but that's a seperate issue.) Of course,
> scientists really don't know what to say about a bunch of creationists.
> They claim that evidence isn't needed; faith is sufficient. Then they
> claim that they have a bunch of evidence. And it gets rather
> confusing. Now I don't know if there is necessarily a definite logical
> contradiction in there, but it really starts to sound iffy. But also,
> there are so many different creationists and intelligent design
> supporters, and they're not all in agreement about most of the
> sub-issues, so naturally, when we lump them into one big category, it
> does sound quite contradictory.
That's true; we should not lump them together a priori. Some, for
instance, are not rude. Others do not pretend to have evidence. There
have even been some willing to look at the evidence.
And, of course, all of the perfectly sound scientists who are
nonetheless theists. They sometimes call themselves creationists, but
they are not of the same ilk as Logos et al.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2005 11:00:09 -0800, "Exponent" <aga...@gmail.com>
> spake thusly:
>
> >Before the bashing of each side goes too far, I would like to suggest
> >that creationists not demanding evidence for their own beliefs and
> >still demanding evidence from scientists is not a problem at all, as
> >far as consistency goes.
> >
> >Creationists are almost universally religious, and almost universally
> >consider faith to be a highly important trait to possess. So for a
> >creationist to be self-consistent, he does not have a need for
> >evidence; faith will suffice, and in some cases is even preferred.
>
> Listen, stupid, let me try to explain this for you, in a way
> that maybe your two year old mind can understand.
>
I wonder how other Christians feel when they see your posts.
> It is not creationists attacking evolutionists. It is the
> other way around and they even subscribe to Christian
> news groups to do it.
>
> It is evolutionists who continue to claim that they have
> "mountains of evidence" and never providing it. You
> know, like you just did.
>
>
> >Scientists, on the other hand, when making scientific claims, are
> >highly dependent upon evidence.
>
> And that is why you don't have any evidence for evolution,
> moron! You type a speech and send it out, as if it REPLACES
> evidence and as if it, in of itself IS evidence. Well, it
> isn't and you are batting zero.
>
> Now either put up, or shut up!
OK.
Why are these not evidence?
1. Fossils, ordered by strata indicating whole ecosystems of different
organisms at different times, and showing numerous excellent
transitions between higher level taxa.
2. Corresponding twin nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA.
3. Continental drift corresponding to the fossil record.
4. Geographical dispersion corresponding to the changes in life thru
the ages as indicated by the fossil record.
5. Support by behavioral sciences.
6. Petrified forests of trees largely buried and fossilized upright,
hundreds of meters over other forests, in several layers.
7. Retrovirus inserted in genes of related animals - such as chimps and
humans - in corresponding locations in the genes.
8. Vestigial organs, such as the plantaris tendon, or the coccyx.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> What shall I render to the Lord
> for all His benefits toward me?
> I will take up the cup of salvation
> and call upon the name of the Lord.
> - Psalm 116:12-13
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Roger Tang wrote:
> On 2005-11-04 17:58:19 -0800, Pastor Dave
> <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said:
>
> > On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:55:21 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> > <craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
> >
> >
> >>> While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
> >>> support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
> >>> view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
> >>> merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory.
> >>
> >> You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
> >> intelligently about this issue.
> >
> > I am not the one claiming "a mountain of evidence"
> > and then demanding that creationists prove God,
> > when it is requested.
> >
> > I.e.: I'm not the liar.
>
> Yes, you are.
>
> What would you accept as evidence?
>
A home movie, preferably showing the entire sequence from uh, goo to
humans.
> >
> >
> >
> >> People who say evolution is silly and "obviously
> >> false" because there is no evidence do leave themselves open to the
> >> question as to why their religious beliefs are not equally silly and obviously
> >> false since they lack evidence as well.
> >
> > Thank you for lying again, stupid. The reality is, that YOU
> > PEOPLE claim that evolution is true and that it is
> > scientifically proved. Creationists RESPOND TO YOU,
> > requesting that "mountain of evidence" that you morons keep
> > claiming to have and then you idiots DECEITFULLY demand
> > answers to your attack on creationism, in place of that so
> > called "mountain of evidence" that YOU CLAIM TO HAVE.
>
>
> --
> oi...@porkfilled.com
> Producer, Porkfilled Players (www.porkfilled.com)
Kermit
Richard Forrest
T Pagano wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2005 23:40:47 -0800, "SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
> >universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
> >evidence of this divine influence.
>
> Which creationists "insisted" that "they don't need to present any
> evidence?" I'm not aware of any serious minded creationist who
> asserts any such thing. SJAB1958 doesn't identify the creationist or
> the written work from he which he supposedly derived it. As such his
> accusation is without merit.
>
> But what of his claim. Creationists do, in fact, presuppose that
> biological life was created by design and each to its own kind. While
> "kind" is not defined with precision
There is no coherent definition of "kinds" by any creationist which
corresponds in any way to any taxonomic classification made from the
empirical data by any taxonomist. The only point of agreement which is
shared by all creationist definitions of 'kinds' is that no matter what
logical inconsistencies it may generate, Homo sapiens is not of the
same kind as other apes.
Of course, if you can provide a definition of "kinds" based on
empirical evidence, please do so.
> these two presuppositions
> nonetheless have empirical implications that can be sought in the
> natural world
How can an incoherent definition not based on any empirical evidence
have any empirical implications?
.
>
> The most important empirical implications of these two presuppositions
> is that
> 1. there should be definite (and perhaps definable) limits to
> biological change.
Why? You are presuming the intervention of a being of infinite powers.
Why are you setting limits on the expression of those powers?
> 2. we should not see the emergence of nascent structures in the
> living or the fossil world
Why not? You are presuming the intervention of a being of infinite
powers. Why are you setting limits on the expression of those powers?
> 3. all populations should be found in a "mature" state and no
> "rudimentary" predecessors should be found.
Why? You are presuming the intervention of a being of infinite powers.
Why are you setting limits on the expression of those powers?
>
>
> These empirical implications stand in stark contrast to the empirical
> implications of neoDarwinian evolution:
> 1. there are no definite or definable limits to biological change.
This is not an implication of evolutionary theory. If there were no
definable limits to biological change there would be no prediction of a
nested hierarchy in living organisms. The existence of this nested
hierarchy is strong evidence for evolution.
> 2. In principle we should see the emergence of nascent structures and
> systems in both the living and the fossil world.
Quite categorically not. The prediction of evolutionary theory is that
any novel structures are modified from precusors - a pattern we see in
both existing organisms and from fossils.
> 3. In principle we should be able to trace "mature" descendants to
> predecessors in varying degrees of development as we proceed back in
> the fossil record.
We can. There is a vast library of scientific research findings which
demonstrate this. Do deny that the evidence supports such an
evolutionary scenrio is downright perverse.
>
>
> In fact, over the 800 million years of fossil record available we find
> that the three empirical implications of the creationist model
Those are not empirical implications of the "creationist model". As the
"model" is
1) Nowhere defined in any terms which can be tested against empirical
evidence
2) Based on the assertion of the existence of "kinds", yet with no
clear definition of what is meant by the term, or any means of deriving
their existence from empirical evidence and
3) Based on the assumption of the intervention of a being of infinite
powers
it can make no empirical predictions
> are
> supported rather than the neoDarwinian one. We see in the living
> world definite limits to the extent of biological change.
Which is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but not of any coherent
"creation model", as such models depend in the intervention of a being
of infinite powers and therefore not subject to any limits.
> The fossil
> record shows "sudden appearance" and "stasis" NOT ubiquitous change.
No it doesn't. It shows a progression in complexity and variety of
living organisms over time, as is predicted by evolutionary theory.
> And there is not a single instance either in the fossil record or the
> living world of a "nascent" structure or system.
And such structures would not be predicted by evolutionary theory, but
are possible (as is anything else) under the "creation model".
> The emergence of new
> structures is never seen.
"New structures" are seen (what else is the wing of a bird, or a bat,
or a pterosaur?), but such structures are always modifications of
precursor structures. This is what evolutionary theory predicts, and
the sudden appearance of a totally novel structure with no biological
precursors would be hard to explain in our modern understanding of
evolution.
>
>
> >But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
> >abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
> >when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
> >that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
> >of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
> >scientist.
>
> Creationists demands are justified.
By what? They provide no evidence, and cannot agree between themselves
on what their model is. You accept a fossil record going back 800
million years. Other creationists insist that the earth was created
6,000 years ago, others that it was created 15,000 years ago, others
that although the earth was created billions of years ago, living
organisms were placed here only 15,000 years ago.
As creationist "theories" are not based on any empirical evidence, but
only on the assertion of the literal truth of their particular
interpretation of a document whose meaning is demonstrably ambigous,
how can there be any means of determining which "theory" is sound?
> Yet here SJAB1958 seems to be
> justifying the lack of evidence of Abiogenesis and justifying the lack
> of concern for that evidence by secularists.
>
> Even false theories have some true consequences and therefore can
> garner some corroborative evidence.
Quite so.
> Newton's theory of gravitation
> was one of the most corroborated theories of all time yet as a
> universal theory it was contradicted by the evidence in some domains
> and superceded by Einstein's.
It wasn't contradicted. At the scales at which Newton was working, it
is still perfectly sound. One can send a rocket to the moon without the
need to invoke relativity theory. It is at very small scales of time,
and at very high speeds that relativity needs to be taken into account.
> The point is that
> evidence-----regardless of how much of it we amass-----is NO
> guarrantee of the verisimilitude of any theory.
Quite so.
> Secularists
Ah! You've slipped up here. All scientists are "secularists" in respect
of their scientific work regardless of their religious beliefs.
> don't
> seem to understand this.
Scientists understand this very well. That's why they will tell you
that all scientific theories are provisional.
> They seem to be under the delusion that as
> the level of corroborative evidence increases the probability of the
> truthlikeness of a theory increases.
Doesn't it? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no relationship
between the amount of evidence which supports a theory, and the
likelyhood that the theory is sound?
> There is no calculus of
> probablity which shows any such thing.
So you are asserting that there is no relationship whatsover with the
amount of evidence which supports a theory, and the soundness of that
theory.
This puts astrology (which has no supporting evidence) on par with
quantum theory (which makes the most acurate predictions of the
behaviour of systems of any theory in any branch of science).
>
> So there is certainly some evidence of-----in a relatively small
> domain---of the model labeled "Abiogenesis."
Which is not a part of evolutionary theory, by the way.
> However, our background
> knowledge in biochemistry and geochemistry stand against all current
> abiogenic models on the whole.
It does? As those models are based on our background knowledge of
biochemistry and geochemistry, this is a rather silly assertion.
> Secularists are well aware of this and
> attempt to distance neoDarwinism from it even though Abiogenesis is a
> necessary and inseparable initial condition of neoDarwinian theory.
In what way? Evolutionary theory is based on the existence of imperfect
replicators. Abiogenesis is an field of research into how those
replicators came into existence. To claim that evolutionary theory is
"inseparable" from abiogenesis is equivalent to claiming that one
cannot predict trajectory of a ball from a knowledge of its current
speed and direction unless one knows if it was thrown, hit by a racket
or fired from a cannon.
>
>
> Secularists and atheists
What about the scientists?
> are going to have to do better than this...
Perhaps. But I think that you need to do rather better yourself. You
could start by providing a biologically meaningful definition of
"kinds"
Or are you going to give me an example of a scientist in any field of
research who builds hypotheses on the basis of their religious
convictions rather than the evidence?
RF
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
John Harshman
> T Pagano wrote:
>
>>On 3 Nov 2005 23:40:47 -0800, "SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
>>>universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
>>>evidence of this divine influence.
>>
>>Which creationists "insisted" that "they don't need to present any
>>evidence?" I'm not aware of any serious minded creationist who
>>asserts any such thing. SJAB1958 doesn't identify the creationist or
>>the written work from he which he supposedly derived it. As such his
>>accusation is without merit.
>>
>>But what of his claim. Creationists do, in fact, presuppose that
>>biological life was created by design and each to its own kind. While
>>"kind" is not defined with precision
>
> There is no coherent definition of "kinds" by any creationist which
> corresponds in any way to any taxonomic classification made from the
> empirical data by any taxonomist. The only point of agreement which is
> shared by all creationist definitions of 'kinds' is that no matter what
> logical inconsistencies it may generate, Homo sapiens is not of the
> same kind as other apes.
And that's testable, isn't it? Pagano is right in this at least. Of
course the creationist hypothesis on this has been falsified many times
over, which Pagano refuses to acknowledge, so while it's testable in
principle, it's not testable to a creationist, because creationists have
no real interest in evidence.
> Of course, if you can provide a definition of "kinds" based on
> empirical evidence, please do so.
>>these two presuppositions
>>nonetheless have empirical implications that can be sought in the
>>natural world
>
> How can an incoherent definition not based on any empirical evidence
> have any empirical implications?
The "incoherent" part makes sense. But why should a hypothesis need to
be based on anything in particular in order to have empirical
implications? I can make one up right now: all bananas are red. It's not
based on anything, but it's certainly testable.
>>The most important empirical implications of these two presuppositions
>>is that
>>1. there should be definite (and perhaps definable) limits to
>>biological change.
>
> Why? You are presuming the intervention of a being of infinite powers.
> Why are you setting limits on the expression of those powers?
Anyway, that's not an implication of the initial hypothesis. Just
because the original "kinds" were created separately doesn't mean there
are any limits on their future evolution. Pagano is confused.
>>2. we should not see the emergence of nascent structures in the
>>living or the fossil world
>
> Why not? You are presuming the intervention of a being of infinite
> powers. Why are you setting limits on the expression of those powers?
Again, not an implication of the stated hypothesis.
>>3. all populations should be found in a "mature" state and no
>>"rudimentary" predecessors should be found.
>
> Why? You are presuming the intervention of a being of infinite powers.
> Why are you setting limits on the expression of those powers?
Now this *is* an implication of the theory, if and only if "populations"
and "kinds" are the same thing. But does he really think so? Is the
eastern meadowlark really (to Pagano) a separate kind, and a separate
creation, from the western meadowlark? I doubt it.
>>These empirical implications stand in stark contrast to the empirical
>>implications of neoDarwinian evolution:
>>1. there are no definite or definable limits to biological change.
>
> This is not an implication of evolutionary theory. If there were no
> definable limits to biological change there would be no prediction of a
> nested hierarchy in living organisms. The existence of this nested
> hierarchy is strong evidence for evolution.
I think you are using "limits" differently from Pagano. He's referring
to the tendency (or lack thereof) of varieties to depart indefinitely
from type. This would seem to be a prediction of common descent. The
problem is that it's not in conflict with creation, per se, unless you
make additional assumptions.
>>2. In principle we should see the emergence of nascent structures and
>>systems in both the living and the fossil world.
>
> Quite categorically not. The prediction of evolutionary theory is that
> any novel structures are modified from precusors - a pattern we see in
> both existing organisms and from fossils.
Depends on how you define "nascent". If he's talking about
transformation of states, no problem. This is a prediction of common
descent. However, it's not in conflict with creation unless we can nail
down the identities of kinds. We should see no intermediate states
between kinds.
>>3. In principle we should be able to trace "mature" descendants to
>>predecessors in varying degrees of development as we proceed back in
>>the fossil record.
>
> We can. There is a vast library of scientific research findings which
> demonstrate this. Do deny that the evidence supports such an
> evolutionary scenrio is downright perverse.
Again, this conflicts with creation if you can define the boundaries of
kinds. Otherwise it might be evolution within kinds.
>>In fact, over the 800 million years of fossil record available we find
>>that the three empirical implications of the creationist model
>
> Those are not empirical implications of the "creationist model". As the
> "model" is
>
> 1) Nowhere defined in any terms which can be tested against empirical
> evidence
> 2) Based on the assertion of the existence of "kinds", yet with no
> clear definition of what is meant by the term, or any means of deriving
> their existence from empirical evidence and
> 3) Based on the assumption of the intervention of a being of infinite
> powers
>
> it can make no empirical predictions
Not true. You can assemble a creation model with empirical predictions.
Where it comes from is another question, and not really relevant.
Pagano's predictions all have flaws, in that they are not required by
his expressed model or are too vague to be tested until he defines the
"kind" boundaries.
But the predictions that can be tested are false, and I bet he would
define kinds in such a way that the predictions that depend on that
definition are obviously false too.
>>are
>>supported rather than the neoDarwinian one. We see in the living
>>world definite limits to the extent of biological change.
>
> Which is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but not of any coherent
> "creation model", as such models depend in the intervention of a being
> of infinite powers and therefore not subject to any limits.
This is just invalid. A being of infinite powers could easily conduct
himself within limits, voluntarily, or set up a system that contained
its own limits. You are also talking past him, since he means something
quite different by "limits" than you do. However, limits on changes
after creation is not a prediction of the vague model he has so far
presented. If he wants to make it an assumption of his model, he is free
to do so, but it doesn't follow from his current assumptions.
>>The fossil
>>record shows "sudden appearance" and "stasis" NOT ubiquitous change.
>
>
> No it doesn't. It shows a progression in complexity and variety of
> living organisms over time, as is predicted by evolutionary theory.
Well, it shows (according to some of the literature at least) sudden
appearance and stasis of individual species (=morphotypes), with few
smooth transitions from one species to another. If Pagano wants to posit
a sort of progressive creation in which individual species are created
throughout the fossil record, then that part of the evidence is not
severely incompatible with his theory. Other parts of the evidence are
incompatible, though, such as the stratigraphic coherence of higher
taxa, the genetic evidence, etc.
>>And there is not a single instance either in the fossil record or the
>>living world of a "nascent" structure or system.
>
> And such structures would not be predicted by evolutionary theory, but
> are possible (as is anything else) under the "creation model".
Not if the creation model is well-defined, and not across "kind"
boundaries. Anyway, there are definitely novel structures. Do you deny
that some bones are neomorphs, for example? Most structures are
modifications of prior ones, but not all. And I suspect Pagano would
count major modifications as "nascent", though it's a bit puzzling,
since such intermediates are common enough, why he thinks they are not seen.
>>The emergence of new
>>structures is never seen.
>
> "New structures" are seen (what else is the wing of a bird, or a bat,
> or a pterosaur?), but such structures are always modifications of
> precursor structures. This is what evolutionary theory predicts, and
> the sudden appearance of a totally novel structure with no biological
> precursors would be hard to explain in our modern understanding of
> evolution.
Not if they're simple enough. What about, for example, the palpebral and
predentary bones in ornithischians?
>>>But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
>>>abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
>>>when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
>>>that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
>>>of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
>>>scientist.
>>
>>Creationists demands are justified.
>
> By what? They provide no evidence, and cannot agree between themselves
> on what their model is. You accept a fossil record going back 800
> million years. Other creationists insist that the earth was created
> 6,000 years ago, others that it was created 15,000 years ago, others
> that although the earth was created billions of years ago, living
> organisms were placed here only 15,000 years ago.
>
> As creationist "theories" are not based on any empirical evidence, but
> only on the assertion of the literal truth of their particular
> interpretation of a document whose meaning is demonstrably ambigous,
> how can there be any means of determining which "theory" is sound?
You confuse the source of hypotheses with the means used to test them.
Hypotheses can come from anywhere. The problem with creationism is not
the source of its hypotheses, but the absence of any willingness to
subject those hypotheses to real tests.
>>Yet here SJAB1958 seems to be
>>justifying the lack of evidence of Abiogenesis and justifying the lack
>>of concern for that evidence by secularists.
>>
>>Even false theories have some true consequences and therefore can
>>garner some corroborative evidence.
>
> Quite so.
Theories are tested, not against some ultimate standard of truth, but
against other theories. We can't tell "true" from "false", precisely. We
can only tell whether one theory fits the data better than another. If a
third theory comes along, it can be tested against the winner of the
previous competition, and so on.
>>Newton's theory of gravitation
>>was one of the most corroborated theories of all time yet as a
>>universal theory it was contradicted by the evidence in some domains
>>and superceded by Einstein's.
>
> It wasn't contradicted. At the scales at which Newton was working, it
> is still perfectly sound. One can send a rocket to the moon without the
> need to invoke relativity theory. It is at very small scales of time,
> and at very high speeds that relativity needs to be taken into account.
Einstein wins over Newton, since he explains everything Newton does and
more. Newer theories may win over Einstein. But Newtonian mechanics
remains as a good approximation of Einsteinian mechanics within a range
of parameters. Any theories that replace current evolutionary theory
will doubtless resemble that situation. Creationism, however, was the
loser to evolution in a previous round. Bringing it back would be like
rejecting Newtonian mechanics in favor of Aristotle.
>>The point is that
>>evidence-----regardless of how much of it we amass-----is NO
>>guarrantee of the verisimilitude of any theory.
>
> Quite so.
But it does enable us to distinguish better theories from poorer
theories, which is all we can ever do.
>>Secularists
>
> Ah! You've slipped up here. All scientists are "secularists" in respect
> of their scientific work regardless of their religious beliefs.
>
>>don't
>>seem to understand this.
>
> Scientists understand this very well. That's why they will tell you
> that all scientific theories are provisional.
>
>>They seem to be under the delusion that as
>>the level of corroborative evidence increases the probability of the
>>truthlikeness of a theory increases.
>
> Doesn't it? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no relationship
> between the amount of evidence which supports a theory, and the
> likelyhood that the theory is sound?
The word on the Colbert Report was "truthiness". Isn't that better than
"truthlikeness"?
>>There is no calculus of
>>probablity which shows any such thing.
>
> So you are asserting that there is no relationship whatsover with the
> amount of evidence which supports a theory, and the soundness of that
> theory.
>
> This puts astrology (which has no supporting evidence) on par with
> quantum theory (which makes the most acurate predictions of the
> behaviour of systems of any theory in any branch of science).
>
>
>>So there is certainly some evidence of-----in a relatively small
>>domain---of the model labeled "Abiogenesis."
>
> Which is not a part of evolutionary theory, by the way.
I'd say it is, or at least that it grades insensibly into evolutionary
theory. But it's certainly irrelevant to most of evolutionary theory.
>>However, our background
>>knowledge in biochemistry and geochemistry stand against all current
>>abiogenic models on the whole.
>
> It does? As those models are based on our background knowledge of
> biochemistry and geochemistry, this is a rather silly assertion.
>
>>Secularists are well aware of this and
>>attempt to distance neoDarwinism from it even though Abiogenesis is a
>>necessary and inseparable initial condition of neoDarwinian theory.
>
> In what way? Evolutionary theory is based on the existence of imperfect
> replicators. Abiogenesis is an field of research into how those
> replicators came into existence. To claim that evolutionary theory is
> "inseparable" from abiogenesis is equivalent to claiming that one
> cannot predict trajectory of a ball from a knowledge of its current
> speed and direction unless one knows if it was thrown, hit by a racket
> or fired from a cannon.
>>
>>Secularists and atheists
>
> What about the scientists?
>
>>are going to have to do better than this...
>
> Perhaps. But I think that you need to do rather better yourself. You
> could start by providing a biologically meaningful definition of
> "kinds"
>
> Or are you going to give me an example of a scientist in any field of
> research who builds hypotheses on the basis of their religious
> convictions rather than the evidence?
Again, it doesn't matter much where the hypotheses come from. Just test
them against each other, using evidence. With a little work, Pagano
could develop his notions into a real hypothesis, and we could test that
hypothesis against the standard theory, assuming there were in fact any
empirically different predictions. If he did that, this theory would
almost certainly lose out, which may be one good reason he keeps his
ideas vague.
Richard Forrest
John Harshman wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > T Pagano wrote:
> >
> >>On 3 Nov 2005 23:40:47 -0800, "SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
> >>>universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
> >>>evidence of this divine influence.
> >>
> >>Which creationists "insisted" that "they don't need to present any
> >>evidence?" I'm not aware of any serious minded creationist who
> >>asserts any such thing. SJAB1958 doesn't identify the creationist or
> >>the written work from he which he supposedly derived it. As such his
> >>accusation is without merit.
> >>
> >>But what of his claim. Creationists do, in fact, presuppose that
> >>biological life was created by design and each to its own kind. While
> >>"kind" is not defined with precision
> >
> > There is no coherent definition of "kinds" by any creationist which
> > corresponds in any way to any taxonomic classification made from the
> > empirical data by any taxonomist. The only point of agreement which is
> > shared by all creationist definitions of 'kinds' is that no matter what
> > logical inconsistencies it may generate, Homo sapiens is not of the
> > same kind as other apes.
>
> And that's testable, isn't it?
Well no. Because "Humans are not apes" is not a proposition to be
tested, it's an absolute assertion which is not offered for
falsification under any definition of 'kinds'.
> Pagano is right in this at least. Of
> course the creationist hypothesis on this has been falsified many times
> over, which Pagano refuses to acknowledge, so while it's testable in
> principle, it's not testable to a creationist, because creationists have
> no real interest in evidence.
>
> > Of course, if you can provide a definition of "kinds" based on
> > empirical evidence, please do so.
>
> >>these two presuppositions
> >>nonetheless have empirical implications that can be sought in the
> >>natural world
> >
> > How can an incoherent definition not based on any empirical evidence
> > have any empirical implications?
>
> The "incoherent" part makes sense. But why should a hypothesis need to
> be based on anything in particular in order to have empirical
> implications? I can make one up right now: all bananas are red. It's not
> based on anything, but it's certainly testable.
True.
The problem is that there is no conceivable observation which *can* be
in conflict with creation if supernatural powers are involved.
Okay, I take your point on this.
> You can assemble a creation model with empirical predictions.
> Where it comes from is another question, and not really relevant.
> Pagano's predictions all have flaws, in that they are not required by
> his expressed model or are too vague to be tested until he defines the
> "kind" boundaries.
>
> But the predictions that can be tested are false, and I bet he would
> define kinds in such a way that the predictions that depend on that
> definition are obviously false too.
>
> >>are
> >>supported rather than the neoDarwinian one. We see in the living
> >>world definite limits to the extent of biological change.
> >
> > Which is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but not of any coherent
> > "creation model", as such models depend in the intervention of a being
> > of infinite powers and therefore not subject to any limits.
>
> This is just invalid. A being of infinite powers could
Could, but need not. A supernatural being of infinite powers is
therefore not subject to limits, though he could impose such limits
within a particular domain.
> easily conduct
> himself within limits, voluntarily, or set up a system that contained
> its own limits. You are also talking past him, since he means something
> quite different by "limits" than you do. However, limits on changes
> after creation is not a prediction of the vague model he has so far
> presented. If he wants to make it an assumption of his model, he is free
> to do so, but it doesn't follow from his current assumptions.
>
> >>The fossil
> >>record shows "sudden appearance" and "stasis" NOT ubiquitous change.
> >
> >
> > No it doesn't. It shows a progression in complexity and variety of
> > living organisms over time, as is predicted by evolutionary theory.
>
> Well, it shows (according to some of the literature at least) sudden
> appearance and stasis of individual species (=morphotypes), with few
> smooth transitions from one species to another. If Pagano wants to posit
> a sort of progressive creation in which individual species are created
> throughout the fossil record, then that part of the evidence is not
> severely incompatible with his theory. Other parts of the evidence are
> incompatible, though, such as the stratigraphic coherence of higher
> taxa, the genetic evidence, etc.
It's the broad picture to which I was referring. The fossil record is
so fragmentary that preservation is not at a resolution at which the
difference between smooth transistions and sudden (whatever that means
within geological timescales) changes
>
> >>And there is not a single instance either in the fossil record or the
> >>living world of a "nascent" structure or system.
> >
> > And such structures would not be predicted by evolutionary theory, but
> > are possible (as is anything else) under the "creation model".
>
> Not if the creation model is well-defined, and not across "kind"
> boundaries. Anyway, there are definitely novel structures. Do you deny
> that some bones are neomorphs, for example?
Of course. In a sense all bones are neomorphs, bearing in mind that all
bony creatures evolved from boneless ancestors.
> Most structures are
> modifications of prior ones, but not all.
> And I suspect Pagano would
> count major modifications as "nascent", though it's a bit puzzling,
> since such intermediates are common enough, why he thinks they are not seen.
>
> >>The emergence of new
> >>structures is never seen.
> >
> > "New structures" are seen (what else is the wing of a bird, or a bat,
> > or a pterosaur?), but such structures are always modifications of
> > precursor structures. This is what evolutionary theory predicts, and
> > the sudden appearance of a totally novel structure with no biological
> > precursors would be hard to explain in our modern understanding of
> > evolution.
>
> Not if they're simple enough. What about, for example, the palpebral and
> predentary bones in ornithischians?
It's hard to know what their homologies are without a good series of
embryos at different stages of development. It's hard to know what the
homologies are with bones we *do* identify confidently - we've been
throwing around the idea that in plesiosaur limbs, the bones we
identify as propodials are in fact fused propodials and epipodials, and
that the bones we identify as epipodials are carpals. It would clarify
some issues on limb morphology, though it would set up a whole range of
other problems.
When I look at a fish skull, and try to make sense of the bones it
seems to me that there are plenty of spare bones in there which with a
little tweak to the odd hox gene would pop up again in an apparently
novel manner.
Pastor Dave
<kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> spake thusly:
>
Thank you for proving my point.
Pastor Dave
<kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> spake thusly:
Note folks: He tells me to go to a library, yet he says he
"dismantled the whole presentation", which was, by his
own words, "Christian sponsored". So how did he do
that? Did he stand up and say, "Go to the library!"?
You see folks, he is dishonest. He claims to be able to
go there in person and "dismantle the whole presentation",
yet, when confronted here, he can only say, "go to a
library". This tells us that he cannot present a thing
and that he lied about this supposed, "dismantling".
If he could do it there, then he would have been able
to present this supposed, "mountain of evidence" here. (:
You're a liar and you have just been bagged lying.
<chuckle>
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Richard Forrest wrote:
>>
>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 3 Nov 2005 23:40:47 -0800, "SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>>There is no coherent definition of "kinds" by any creationist which
>>>corresponds in any way to any taxonomic classification made from the
>>>empirical data by any taxonomist. The only point of agreement which is
>>>shared by all creationist definitions of 'kinds' is that no matter what
>>>logical inconsistencies it may generate, Homo sapiens is not of the
>>>same kind as other apes.
>>
>>And that's testable, isn't it?
>
>
> Well no. Because "Humans are not apes" is not a proposition to be
> tested, it's an absolute assertion which is not offered for
> falsification under any definition of 'kinds'.
You have a strange way of putting things that is getting in the way
here. You mean that creationists refuse to test their assertion. That
doesn't make it untestable. It's an easily tested hypothesis provided
you are willing to let data decide the question.
[snp]
> The problem is that there is no conceivable observation which *can* be
> in conflict with creation if supernatural powers are involved.
Not with "creation" if that's the whole of the hypothesis. But the
problem is not the supernatural agency, per se. It's the vagueness of
that naked word as a hypothesis. Particular hypotheses of creation can
be tested easily. "Evolution" isn't testable either, since it's also a
single word that's too vague to constitute a hypothesis. That doesn't
keep particular evolutionary hypotheses from being tested.
[single nucleotide polymorphism]
>>>Which is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but not of any coherent
>>>"creation model", as such models depend in the intervention of a being
>>>of infinite powers and therefore not subject to any limits.
>>
>>This is just invalid. A being of infinite powers could
>
> Could, but need not. A supernatural being of infinite powers is
> therefore not subject to limits, though he could impose such limits
> within a particular domain.
Irrelevant. We're not testing the existence of a supernatural being of
infinite powers. We're testing particular hypotheses of how a being (or
whatever cause, really) operated. Call it the separate origin theory, if
you like. You could if you wanted, attribute the causal agent to
Senapathyism (a supposed natural mechanism) without changing what's
being tested.
>>easily conduct
>>himself within limits, voluntarily, or set up a system that contained
>>its own limits. You are also talking past him, since he means something
>>quite different by "limits" than you do. However, limits on changes
>>after creation is not a prediction of the vague model he has so far
>>presented. If he wants to make it an assumption of his model, he is free
>>to do so, but it doesn't follow from his current assumptions.
>>
>>
>>>>The fossil
>>>>record shows "sudden appearance" and "stasis" NOT ubiquitous change.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it doesn't. It shows a progression in complexity and variety of
>>>living organisms over time, as is predicted by evolutionary theory.
>>
>>Well, it shows (according to some of the literature at least) sudden
>>appearance and stasis of individual species (=morphotypes), with few
>>smooth transitions from one species to another. If Pagano wants to posit
>>a sort of progressive creation in which individual species are created
>>throughout the fossil record, then that part of the evidence is not
>>severely incompatible with his theory. Other parts of the evidence are
>>incompatible, though, such as the stratigraphic coherence of higher
>>taxa, the genetic evidence, etc.
>
> It's the broad picture to which I was referring. The fossil record is
> so fragmentary that preservation is not at a resolution at which the
> difference between smooth transistions and sudden (whatever that means
> within geological timescales) changes
Gould would have disagreed with you (except about the "whatever that
means" part), and Pagano might be talking about the little picture. He
has after all claimed from time to time that every species was
separately created. I'll agree that creationists seldom if ever seem to
understand the difference between the little picture and the big
picture, and there is so far no indication that Pagano does either. But
you should at least allow for the possibility, and keep it clear in your
own mind and in what you write.
>>>>And there is not a single instance either in the fossil record or the
>>>>living world of a "nascent" structure or system.
>>>
>>>And such structures would not be predicted by evolutionary theory, but
>>>are possible (as is anything else) under the "creation model".
>>
>>Not if the creation model is well-defined, and not across "kind"
>>boundaries. Anyway, there are definitely novel structures. Do you deny
>>that some bones are neomorphs, for example?
>
> Of course. In a sense all bones are neomorphs, bearing in mind that all
> bony creatures evolved from boneless ancestors.
Therefore there are novel structures. I would argue that there are
several other novel structures in vertebrate evolution: ectodermal
placodes, paired fins, osteoderms, etc.
Not, as it happens, in the jaw. All bony fish have dentaries just like
you do, with nothing in front of them. (Though there may be a few
neomorphs nested deeply within teleosts; don't know if there are, but
they would be clearly independent.) Anyway, I'm not talking about
developmental genetic homologies, but structural ones. Those bones are
true neomorphs. I'm sure they resulted from simple modification of
existing developmental pathways, but that's another matter.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
> >You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
> >intelligently about this issue.
>
> I am not the one claiming "a mountain of evidence"
> and then demanding that creationists prove God,
> when it is requested.
>
> I.e.: I'm not the liar.
Evolutionists aren't lying when they state the theory of evolution has
been "over determined," to use a more precise term. The natural history
of the planet, combined with the modern science of genetics, all point
to evolution being the case.
Try imagining the flip side of this: if the TOE is false, what does that
entail? The universe is magical. Is there anything in science that points
to a magical universe? Say I have NO evidence on how the Egyptians
built the pyramids. Can I conclude then that they were a race of
magicians? Of course not.
> >People who say evolution is silly and "obviously
> >false" because there is no evidence do leave themselves open to the
> >question as to why their religious beliefs are not equally silly and obviously
> >false since they lack evidence as well.
>
> Thank you for lying again, stupid. The reality is, that YOU
> PEOPLE claim that evolution is true and that it is
> scientifically proved.
That's correct.
> Creationists RESPOND TO YOU,
> requesting that "mountain of evidence" that you morons keep
> claiming to have and then you idiots DECEITFULLY demand
> answers to your attack on creationism, in place of that so
> called "mountain of evidence" that YOU CLAIM TO HAVE.
You are simply refusing to think scientifically. The problem is the theory
of evolution has left all the markings we would expect it to leave. If that
is inadequate for you, then no one will ever convince you.
John Baker
>
>Roger Tang wrote:
>> On 2005-11-04 17:58:19 -0800, Pastor Dave
>> <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:55:21 GMT, "Craig Franck"
>> > <craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>> >
>> >
>> >>> While I have my opinion on the topic, and it is most definitely in
>> >>> support of evolution, my post was not meant in any way to defend that
>> >>> view. In fact, my post was there to counter all the people who were
>> >>> merely bashing creationism as being hypocritical and contradictory.
>> >>
>> >> You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
>> >> intelligently about this issue.
>> >
>> > I am not the one claiming "a mountain of evidence"
>> > and then demanding that creationists prove God,
>> > when it is requested.
>> >
>> > I.e.: I'm not the liar.
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>>
>> What would you accept as evidence?
>>
>
>A home movie, preferably showing the entire sequence from uh, goo to
>humans.
No. He'd just claim it was done with special effects.
scooter
Hey Pastor Idiot, Since you were not at the presentation, you have no
clue as to what you are talking about. Impugning someone's integrity
and bearing false witness is a sin. Pull your head out of your butt. It
takes very little to dismantle a presentation that attempts to prove
"supernatural" occurances by showing clips of Lord of the Rings. Your
an idiot and people with any sense at all understand your vitriolic
nonsense is baseless.
Pastor Dave
<craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>
>> >You'll learn rather quickly that Pastor Dave either can't, or won't, think
>> >intelligently about this issue.
>>
>> I am not the one claiming "a mountain of evidence"
>> and then demanding that creationists prove God,
>> when it is requested.
>>
>> I.e.: I'm not the liar.
>
>Evolutionists aren't lying when they state the theory of evolution has
>been "over determined," to use a more precise term. The natural history
>of the planet, combined with the modern science of genetics, all point
>to evolution being the case.
>
>Try imagining the flip side of this: if the TOE is false, what does that
>entail? The universe is magical. Is there anything in science that points
>to a magical universe? Say I have NO evidence on how the Egyptians
>built the pyramids. Can I conclude then that they were a race of
>magicians? Of course not.
In other words, they don't like what evolution being false
means, folks. Note two things...
1) They invent a fairy take picture of what it would mean
if evolution is false, to try to make it sound ridiculous.
2) He has not provided any of this supposed "mountain
of evidence" they claim to have. Rather, all he has, is
"imagine if...".
I.e., one more post to add to the collection of those who
claim it is proved and when the proof is requested, provide
nothing but, "imagine if...".
In other words, they cling to evolution, because they don't
like the alternative, which btw, is never as they choose to
represent it. But the fact is, that whether they admit it
or not, the odds of what they believe happening, would be
like winning the Powerball 1,000,000 times every day for
billions of years and yet, in the Tri-State area some years
ago, all three states hit the 3 number lottery with the same
number (666) and they knew it was fraud, investigated it and
made arrests. Yet, they want you to believe that what they
believe occurred and that it is logical, reasonable and
scientific to believe it. <chuckle>
The fact is, that they believe in a miracle, without a
miracle worker.
So they want us to "imagine if...". Okay, let's... :)
"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous)
for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of
death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's
history resembles man's creation myths, it is this
sudden diversification of marine life when
multicellular organisms took over as the dominant
actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and
embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us
and stands as a major biological revolution on a par
with the invention of self-replication
and the origin of the eukaryotic cell." (Bengtson,
Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature,
vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766)
>> >People who say evolution is silly and "obviously
>> >false" because there is no evidence do leave themselves open to the
>> >question as to why their religious beliefs are not equally silly and obviously
>> >false since they lack evidence as well.
>>
>> Thank you for lying again, stupid. The reality is, that YOU
>> PEOPLE claim that evolution is true and that it is
>> scientifically proved.
>
>That's correct.
And yet folks, which of their messages contained this
"scientific proof"? It would seem to me, that after it
has been requested in message after message, for
year after year, that at least one message would have
contained this "proof".
>> Creationists RESPOND TO YOU,
>> requesting that "mountain of evidence" that you morons keep
>> claiming to have and then you idiots DECEITFULLY demand
>> answers to your attack on creationism, in place of that so
>> called "mountain of evidence" that YOU CLAIM TO HAVE.
>
>You are simply refusing to think scientifically. The problem is the theory
>of evolution has left all the markings we would expect it to leave. If that
>is inadequate for you, then no one will ever convince you.
You see folks, they claim it is "scientifically proved", but
when it is pointed out that we have yet to see such proof,
they claim that to ask for such proof, that we are not
thinking scientifically. <chuckle> It is apparently, not
scientific to question evolution. One needs to just believe
it by faith, because "they said so". That sounds to me,
to be anti-science.
"If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct
that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science,"
he said. "And I really think that's what's become of
Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
Maybe that is why Dr. Karl Popper said that evolution
is not a law, nor a theory and that it doesn't even rise
to the level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program and he was right.
The fact is, that they prove this every day, when they
acknowledge that this "proof" was requested time
and time again and yet, time and time again, respond
with, "imagine if...". (:
They claim that it has, "left all the markings we would
expect it to leave". Yet all we see is the sudden
appearance of various kinds, with no evolution into
other kinds, which even the famous names in evolution
admit and yet, we are expected to believe that because
this man says so and does not provide the "scientific
proof" that he claims exists, that it is so. So apparently
folks, what that means is...
"They said so = It is scientifically proved"
...and we still await this "scientific proof". And so do
those who know better than to claim that the "markings"
are there. <chuckle>
Let's look at what those who believe in evolution have
to say and there are some famous names in the quotes:
"When we descend to details we can prove that no one
species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a
single species has changed): nor can we prove that
the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why
some species have changed and others have not.
The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult
to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)
"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of
them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding
of the relationships between living organisms is barely
perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to
say that fossils, or at least the traditional
interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than
clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."
(Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus
Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that
fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the
conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination
of the work of those paleontologists who have been
particularly concerned with the relationship between
paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that
of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness
of the fact that the record of evolution, like any
other historical record, must be construed within a
complex of particular and general preconceptions not
the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has
occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any
evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with
it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary
theories, and revolutionary theories and special
creationist theories and even historical theories."
(Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.
Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of
creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then
one would expect to find fossils of transitional
creatures which were a bit like what went before them
and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet
found any evidence of such transitional creatures.
This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil
record which gradualists expected to fill when rock
strata of the proper age had been found. In the last
decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of
all divisions of the last 500 million years and no
transitional forms were contained in them." (The
Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
"In fact, there is a great deal more to the
creation/evolution controversy than meets the eye,
or rather than meets the carefully cultivated media
stereotype of 'creationists' as Bible quoting know
nothings who refuse to face up to the scientific
evidence. The creationists may be wrong about many
things, but they have at least one very important
point to argue, a point that has been thoroughly
obscured by all the attention paid to Noah's Flood
and other side issues. What science educators
propose to teach as 'evolution' and label it as fact,
is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical
evidence (scientifically proven facts, ed.), but upon
a highly controversial philosophical presupposition.
The controversy over evolution is therefore not going
to go away as people become better educated on the
subject. On the contrary, the more people learn
about the philosophical content of what scientists
are calling the 'fact of evolution', the less they
are going to like it." - Philip E. Johnson, Evolution
as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism
"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31
"Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent
designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd
Craig Franck
> In other words, they don't like what evolution being false
> means, folks. Note two things...
>
> 1) They invent a fairy take picture of what it would mean
> if evolution is false, to try to make it sound ridiculous.
>
> 2) He has not provided any of this supposed "mountain
> of evidence" they claim to have. Rather, all he has, is
> "imagine if...".
As someone suggested, go to the library and get a book on the
subject. My library has a whole shelf full of them. You could also
visit the t.o website.
> I.e., one more post to add to the collection of those who
> claim it is proved and when the proof is requested, provide
> nothing but, "imagine if...".
It's only proven within the context of a naturalistic explanation.
> In other words, they cling to evolution, because they don't
> like the alternative, which btw, is never as they choose to
> represent it. But the fact is, that whether they admit it
> or not, the odds of what they believe happening, would be
> like winning the Powerball 1,000,000 times every day for
> billions of years and yet, in the Tri-State area some years
> ago, all three states hit the 3 number lottery with the same
> number (666) and they knew it was fraud, investigated it and
> made arrests. Yet, they want you to believe that what they
> believe occurred and that it is logical, reasonable and
> scientific to believe it. <chuckle>
That's just as poor a characterization of evolution as you feel I made
of Creationism. Eyes evolved independently at least half a dozen times.
I'd say that means there was a 100% chance of eyes evolving at some
point in time.
None of those numbers you came up with would be acceptable to the
vast majority of scientists.
> The fact is, that they believe in a miracle, without a
> miracle worker.
>
> So they want us to "imagine if...". Okay, let's... :)
That's a mischaracterization. Evolution requires no miracles.
> "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous)
> for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of
> death. Mostly they cheat. ...
This is what I mean by you not thinking scientifically: the fossil
records is miniscule because fossils don't form very often. They
work with what they have. We could live on a planet where fossils
didn't form at all, and you could generate the TOE from genetics.
> And yet folks, which of their messages contained this
> "scientific proof"? It would seem to me, that after it
> has been requested in message after message, for
> year after year, that at least one message would have
> contained this "proof".
That piece of worn out rhetoric gets old fast.
> You see folks, they claim it is "scientifically proved", but
> when it is pointed out that we have yet to see such proof,
> they claim that to ask for such proof, that we are not
> thinking scientifically. <chuckle> It is apparently, not
> scientific to question evolution. One needs to just believe
> it by faith, because "they said so". That sounds to me,
> to be anti-science.
Science does not define itself by what Biblical quacks think.
Pastor Dave
<kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> spake thusly:
Hey, idiot, since you can't seem to provide one shred of
this supposed "mountain of evidence", even given the
fact that you have the time and resources to gather all
of the information that you want to, don't expect people
to believe that you went to some presentation and totally
dismantled this whole presentation, when all you could do
with all of the resources available to you right now, was
to say, "Go to the library".
You are A LIAR, plain and simple, dufus! <chuckle>
Mark Isaak
Your point being that you mind is closed beyond any possibility of
redemption, that your absence of faith is absolute.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
>Well, thank you stupid. You have proved that you are indeed
>a moron who seeks to tear people away from their faith.
What do *you* know about faith? It would be impossible to find
anything in the world with less faith than you. What you have is
dogma, which cannot exist with faith.
bob young
John Baker wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2005 23:40:47 -0800, "SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
> >universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
> >evidence of this divine influence.
> >
> >But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
> >abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
> >when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
> >that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
> >of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
> >scientist.
> >
> >Strange or what?
>
> For the creationist, when it comes to evolution, no evidence is good
> enough. However, when it comes to their religious beliefs, no evidence
> is good enough. <G>
Yes and after doing that they 'feel better'
funny !
SJAB1958
T Pagano wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2005 23:40:47 -0800, "SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
> >universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
> >evidence of this divine influence.
>
> evidence?" I'm not aware of any serious minded creationist who
> asserts any such thing. SJAB1958 doesn't identify the creationist or
> the written work from he which he supposedly derived it. As such his
> accusation is without merit.
If you care to look at the various threads in which the supporters of
the theory of evolution attempt to present evidence you will see which
creationist I am referring to, and he knows who he is as well.
> But what of his claim. Creationists do, in fact, presuppose that
> biological life was created by design and each to its own kind. While
> "kind" is not defined with precision these two presuppositions
> nonetheless have empirical implications that can be sought in the
> natural world.
>
> The most important empirical implications of these two presuppositions
> is that
> 1. there should be definite (and perhaps definable) limits to
> biological change.
Who says there should be definite limits to biological change?
> 2. we should not see the emergence of nascent structures in the
> living or the fossil world
Have you studied embryology? One major fact stands out, all the
vertebrate embryos grow a primitive urinary system which opens directly
into the digestive tract, forming a cloaca, but only in mammals does
this change and become separate before birth. That to me is rather
obvious evidence of a nascent structure.
> 3. all populations should be found in a "mature" state and no
> "rudimentary" predecessors should be found.
The fossil record while incomplete because of the nature of the
fossilisation process, has many examples of transitonals, or what you
are referring to as rudimentary predecessors.
> These empirical implications stand in stark contrast to the empirical
> implications of neoDarwinian evolution:
> 1. there are no definite or definable limits to biological change.
> 2. In principle we should see the emergence of nascent structures and
> systems in both the living and the fossil world.
> 3. In principle we should be able to trace "mature" descendants to
> predecessors in varying degrees of development as we proceed back in
> the fossil record.
>
>
> In fact, over the 800 million years of fossil record available we find
> that the three empirical implications of the creationist model are
> supported rather than the neoDarwinian one. We see in the living
> world definite limits to the extent of biological change. The fossil
> record shows "sudden appearance" and "stasis" NOT ubiquitous change.
> And there is not a single instance either in the fossil record or the
> living world of a "nascent" structure or system. The emergence of new
> structures is never seen.
I dont know what you have been looking at but that is definitely not
the case.
> >But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
> >abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
> >when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
> >that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
> >of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
> >scientist.
>
> Creationists demands are justified. Yet here SJAB1958 seems to be
> justifying the lack of evidence of Abiogenesis and justifying the lack
> of concern for that evidence by secularists.
So creationists can make demands of scientists, but scientists cant
make demands of creationists. Typical.
Laboratory studies have shown that under given conditions chemicals can
become self-organising and self-replicating. The fact that there is no
'fossil' evidence for such an event is not surprising, but is probably
because science doesnt know what to look for as evidence.
> Even false theories have some true consequences and therefore can
> garner some corroborative evidence. Newton's theory of gravitation
> was one of the most corroborated theories of all time yet as a
> universal theory it was contradicted by the evidence in some domains
> and superceded by Einstein's.
Newton's theory has not been proven false, his predictions on a day to
day level still apply. Or didnt you ever study his three laws of
motion?
> The point is that
> evidence-----regardless of how much of it we amass-----is NO
> guarrantee of the verisimilitude of any theory. Secularists don't
> seem to understand this. They seem to be under the delusion that as
> the level of corroborative evidence increases the probability of the
> truthlikeness of a theory increases. There is no calculus of
> probablity which shows any such thing.
So no amount of evidence is going to prove anything? But creationists
constantly demand that they be given evidence. That is somewhat
contradictory.
So if no amount of evidence proves anything, should we release all the
guilty criminals. After all according to your reasoning evidence stands
for naught.
> So there is certainly some evidence of-----in a relatively small
> domain---of the model labeled "Abiogenesis." However, our background
> knowledge in biochemistry and geochemistry stand against all current
> abiogenic models on the whole. Secularists are well aware of this and
> attempt to distance neoDarwinism from it even though Abiogenesis is a
> necessary and inseparable initial condition of neoDarwinian theory.
Darwin's theory of evolution was an attempt - like all other theories
of anything - to explain what is happening in the natural world.
His theory looks at what happens to living organisms in the natural
world, and never was intended to explain how living organisms came into
existence in the first place.
Abiogenesis is the hypothesis regarding how chemicals became
self-organising and self-replicating and eventually formed living
organisms.
Biological Evolution - which Darwin addresses - is the theory of what
happens to living organisms.
> Secularists and atheists are going to have to do better than this...
So if no amount of evidence is going to prove anything how can the
scientists of the world do better to satisfy you creationists?
And when are you going to provide evidence of creation? Ah but you wont
be able to as according to your reasoning, no amount of evidence proves
anything. Nice get out clause.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Sverker Johansson
> John Baker wrote:
>
Nominated text:
---
> > For the creationist, when it comes to evolution, no evidence is good
> > enough. However, when it comes to their religious beliefs, no evidence
> > is good enough. <G>
---
> You deserve a prize for that one!
Deserving indeed. So I nominate it for the Chez Watt prize.
--
Best regards,
Sverker Johansson
-----------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------
John Baker
wrote:
>John Baker wrote:
>
>> For the creationist, when it comes to evolution, no evidence is good
>> enough. However, when it comes to their religious beliefs, no evidence
>> is good enough. <G>
>
>You deserve a prize for that one!
>
> Chimp
Thanks. I wasn't sure it would come across in print the way I intended
it. :-)
Steven J.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-rm5om11qbdaot...@4ax.com...
> On 3 Nov 2005 23:40:47 -0800, "SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So a creationist can believe in a divine influence in the making of the
>>universe and everything in it, and insist they dont need to present any
>>evidence of this divine influence.
>
> Which creationists "insisted" that "they don't need to present any
> evidence?" I'm not aware of any serious minded creationist who
> asserts any such thing. SJAB1958 doesn't identify the creationist or
> the written work from he which he supposedly derived it. As such his
> accusation is without merit.
>
any "evidence for creation." Your own list below is not a list of what
creation predicts, but a set of assertions that evidence predicted by
evolutionary theory does not exist. You offer no specific theory of what we
should expect from creation (e.g. common descent with modification --
evolution -- implies a consistent nested hierarchy of life; what does
separate creation imply?).
>
> But what of his claim. Creationists do, in fact, presuppose that
> biological life was created by design and each to its own kind. While
> "kind" is not defined with precision these two presuppositions
> nonetheless have empirical implications that can be sought in the
> natural world.
>
evolve into another "kind," but at the same time cannot say whether two
species are the same or different "kinds" to begin with, then it's hard to
find the empirical implications of the idea that evolution is restricted to
"kinds." Now, in one case, it might appear that creationists are specific
about the limits of "kinds:" humans are one "kind," and all other apes are
in one or more other "kinds." But at the same time, there exist fossils,
like ER1470 (a fairly complete skull -- this is not some fragment that could
go to any primate, but one whose size and shape can be determined), that
some creationists regard as belonging to the human "kind," and other
creationsists relegate to a nonhuman ape "kind." So even the most crucial
implication of "kinds" -- that one can tell whether a population is human or
not -- fails.
>
> The most important empirical implications of these two presuppositions
> is that
> 1. there should be definite (and perhaps definable) limits to
> biological change.
> living or the fossil world
> "rudimentary" predecessors should be found.
>
"nascent structures." Your closest approach, when discussing the Pearson,
et al. paper on forams, refused to recognize any feature of a foram test or
shell as "nascent," since the shell (but not the inner chamber that
eventually and gradually appeared) was already there in the earliest
specimens of the species. By that standard, of course, there can be no
"nascent" features of primates evolving into humans, since all the organs
and structures found in humans already have counterparts in lemurs and other
primitive primates. Indeed, you seem to be demanding, of a "nascent"
structure, something evolutionary theory does not predict: a structure with
no precursors in its ancestors, and (apparently) no use to the species which
first possesses it.
You have not explained why, e.g. the toothed jaw of _Archaeopteryx_ should
not count as a "nascent" bill, or why its wing (with flight feathers, but
lacking the alula of modern birds, and with the bone structure of a theropod
forelimb rather than that of a modern bird) should not count as "nascent."
You have never explained why no early stage of the _rete mirabile_ in early
cetaceans is "nascent." You have not, of course, dealt with "rudimentary"
features of modern humans as seen in the various australopiths and early
hominines.
It seems to me that if you refuse to define terms like "mature,"
"rudimentary," and "nascent," your "empirical implications" are not
empirical at all; there is no possible way to test them. Yet if one
attaches any reasonable definition to them, all have been repeatedly
disconfirmed by the fossil record.
>
> These empirical implications stand in stark contrast to the empirical
> implications of neoDarwinian evolution:
> 1. there are no definite or definable limits to biological change.
> 2. In principle we should see the emergence of nascent structures and
> systems in both the living and the fossil world.
> 3. In principle we should be able to trace "mature" descendants to
> predecessors in varying degrees of development as we proceed back in
> the fossil record.
>
Implication 3, as you have stated it, is not an implication of evolutionary
theory. One needs to add, to evolutionary theory, the assumptions that
fossilization happens to a large fraction of organisms, that all species
leave abundant fossils throughout their history on this planet, that these
fossils are not commonly destroyed by erosion or other processes, and that
paleontologists have found and described some substantial fraction of the
fossil populations that exist. None of these appear to be true. It does
not follow that, if a population with certain traits existed, that we will
have found its fossils, or even that its fossils ever existed to be found.
But, as noted, there nonetheless exist many fossil species that show
"nascent" features of modern species, whether whales with small heads (and
rudimentary traces of the _rete mirabile_), or theropods with feathers (but
not flight feathers or wings) and hollow bones like those of modern birds,
or nonhuman apes with pelves adapted for erect walking and the foramen
magnum at the base rather than back of the skull.
>
> In fact, over the 800 million years of fossil record available we find
> that the three empirical implications of the creationist model are
> supported rather than the neoDarwinian one. We see in the living
> world definite limits to the extent of biological change. The fossil
> record shows "sudden appearance" and "stasis" NOT ubiquitous change.
> And there is not a single instance either in the fossil record or the
> living world of a "nascent" structure or system. The emergence of new
> structures is never seen.
>
"Stasis" refers not not the lack of "nascent structures," but to the lack of
any morphological evolution in a fossil species over some period, until it
is replaced by a different species in the same genus. The "sudden
appearance" noted by proponents of punctuated equilibria is the absence of
evidence of the sort of evolution (of one species to another within the same
genus or "kind") which has been demonstrated in the laboratory and field.
>
>>But that same creationist will demand that a scientist prove that
>>abiogenesis and evolution have occurred over billions of years, and
>>when given the evidence and observations and all the data available,
>>that same creationist will ignore, ridicule or even deny the existence
>>of any evidence supporting what they will then call the belief of the
>>scientist.
>
> Creationists demands are justified. Yet here SJAB1958 seems to be
> justifying the lack of evidence of Abiogenesis and justifying the lack
> of concern for that evidence by secularists.
>
> Even false theories have some true consequences and therefore can
> garner some corroborative evidence. Newton's theory of gravitation
> was one of the most corroborated theories of all time yet as a
> universal theory it was contradicted by the evidence in some domains
> and superceded by Einstein's. The point is that
> evidence-----regardless of how much of it we amass-----is NO
> guarrantee of the verisimilitude of any theory. Secularists don't
> seem to understand this. They seem to be under the delusion that as
> the level of corroborative evidence increases the probability of the
> truthlikeness of a theory increases. There is no calculus of
> probablity which shows any such thing.
>
Newton's theories are still taught in schools, and still used for practical
purposes. Einstein did not show that, in fact, heavier objects fall faster
than lighter ones in a vacuum, or that the sun in fact orbits the Earth.
Newton's theories are approximations of Einsteinian theories, not something
utterly overturned and tossed aside after Einstein.
>
> So there is certainly some evidence of-----in a relatively small
> domain---of the model labeled "Abiogenesis." However, our background
> knowledge in biochemistry and geochemistry stand against all current
> abiogenic models on the whole. Secularists are well aware of this and
> attempt to distance neoDarwinism from it even though Abiogenesis is a
> necessary and inseparable initial condition of neoDarwinian theory.
>
Yet creationists themselves accept that evolution, within limits, can occur
even if the original "kinds" are specially created. And "serious-minded"
creationists, if you back them into a corner, will accept mutations
(including beneficial mutations), natural selection, and change in
populations over time. Even if naturalistic abiogenesis were as contrary to
current science as you imagine, neoDarwinism could be a correct description
of how life changes (within "limits" that creationists can neither specify,
nor define, nor justify) over time, once it exists. Therefore, difficulties
with abiogenesis cannot be evidence against evolutionary theory.
>
> Secularists and atheists are going to have to do better than this...
>
Apparently, rabid epistomological nihilism coupled with intransigent bigotry
are your notion of "better."
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
-- Steven J.
Pastor Dave
<craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" wrote
>
>> In other words, they don't like what evolution being false
>> means, folks. Note two things...
>>
>> 1) They invent a fairy take picture of what it would mean
>> if evolution is false, to try to make it sound ridiculous.
>>
>> 2) He has not provided any of this supposed "mountain
>> of evidence" they claim to have. Rather, all he has, is
>> "imagine if...".
>
>As someone suggested, go to the library and get a book on the
>subject. My library has a whole shelf full of them. You could also
>visit the t.o website.
And there is the supposed "mountain of evidence".
They tell you to "Go to a library".
Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
VoiceOfReason
Pastor Dave wrote:
> Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
Speaking of liars, how long are you gonna keep up this "pastor" BS?
Given your posting habits, I doubt anybody believes it anyway.
Ernest Major
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes
>
>Hey, idiot, since you can't seem to provide one shred of
>this supposed "mountain of evidence", even given the
>fact that you have the time and resources to gather all
>of the information that you want to, don't expect people
>to believe that you went to some presentation and totally
>dismantled this whole presentation, when all you could do
>with all of the resources available to you right now, was
>to say, "Go to the library".
>
>You are A LIAR, plain and simple, dufus! <chuckle>
>
databases count?
Why doesn't the biased composition of island fauna and flora count.
Why don't the mountains full of fossils (e.g. the South Downs) count.
Why don't the observed, experimental and commercial speciation events -
including Senecio cambrica, Spartina anglica, Tragopogon mirus,
Tragopogon miscellus, Aesculus carnea, Digitalis mertonensis, Primula
kewensis, at least 3 novel species of Brassica, at least 2 species of
Raphanobrassica, at least 3 species of Tritocosecale count, snd several
species of Gossypium count? Why doesn't recreating Arabidopsis suecica,
Brassica carinata, Brassica juncea, Brassica napus, Galeopsis tetrahit,
several species of Gilia, Nicotiana tabacum and Triticum aestivum count?
Why doesn't the recreating Helianthus anomalus count?
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 05/11/2005
Libertarius
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:22:46 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> <craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>
> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
> >
> >> In other words, they don't like what evolution being false
> >> means, folks. Note two things...
> >>
> >> 1) They invent a fairy take picture of what it would mean
> >> if evolution is false, to try to make it sound ridiculous.
> >>
> >> 2) He has not provided any of this supposed "mountain
> >> of evidence" they claim to have. Rather, all he has, is
> >> "imagine if...".
> >
> >As someone suggested, go to the library and get a book on the
> >subject. My library has a whole shelf full of them. You could also
> >visit the t.o website.
>
> And there is the supposed "mountain of evidence".
>
> They tell you to "Go to a library".
===>Indeed, if you got off your butt and went to a library to see more
of the REAL BIBLE*, you might realize your mistaken beliefs. -- L.
(*Actually, the real "BIBLE" consists not just of those few books found
in the Christian collection, but of ALL BOOKS (Greek "biblia",
as in "biblioteka" - a library) indeed ALL THE WRITINGS EVER
PRODUCED BY HUMAN WRITERS.
In THAT sense, of course, the "BIBLE" is constantly being "updated".)
Darrell Stec
papa...@cybertown.com wrote:
He is definitely lying about being a pastor at a Church of Christ anywhere
in Florida, despite his signature. According to the rather complete
Congregations of Church of Christ website, there is no church by the name
he uses, and no pastor is named Dave Raymond at any of the churches listed
in Florida. No deacons either.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>
> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
> >> 2) He has not provided any of this supposed "mountain
> >> of evidence" they claim to have. Rather, all he has, is
> >> "imagine if...".
> >
> >As someone suggested, go to the library and get a book on the
> >subject. My library has a whole shelf full of them. You could also
> >visit the t.o website.
>
> And there is the supposed "mountain of evidence".
>
> They tell you to "Go to a library".
>
> Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
Dave, in case you're not aware of this, that's where we keep all of our
mountains of evidence in order to hide it from folks like you. It's all
locked up inside. . . you know . . . in BOOKS!
CreateThis
> ... I'm not aware of any serious minded creationist who
> asserts any such thing.
Duh. What serious minded creationists are you aware of?
CT
Pastor Dave
<craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>>
>> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
>
>> >> 2) He has not provided any of this supposed "mountain
>> >> of evidence" they claim to have. Rather, all he has, is
>> >> "imagine if...".
>> >
>> >As someone suggested, go to the library and get a book on the
>> >subject. My library has a whole shelf full of them. You could also
>> >visit the t.o website.
>>
>> And there is the supposed "mountain of evidence".
>>
>> They tell you to "Go to a library".
>>
>> Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
>
>Dave, in case you're not aware of this, that's where we keep all of our
>mountains of evidence in order to hide it from folks like you. It's all
>locked up inside. . . you know . . . in BOOKS!
And yet folks, they come into news groups arguing the point
and also claim that they have shown me this "mountain of
evidence". How is that possible, when they are later forced
to admit that they have not and that the best they have is,
"Go to a library"?
They also wish to try to convince you, that with all of the
resources of the Internet at their disposal, that no one,
nowhere, has any of this "scientifically proven fact", as
they call it, available for your perusal. <chuckle>
They're LIARS, folks, plain and simple and they HATE
the fact that they can't fool me! <chuckle>
Kleuskes & Moos
Pastor Dave schreef:
<snip>
> >Dave, in case you're not aware of this, that's where we keep all of our
> >mountains of evidence in order to hide it from folks like you. It's all
> >locked up inside. . . you know . . . in BOOKS!
>
> And yet folks, they come into news groups arguing the point
> and also claim that they have shown me this "mountain of
> evidence". How is that possible, when they are later forced
> to admit that they have not and that the best they have is,
> "Go to a library"?
>
> They also wish to try to convince you, that with all of the
> resources of the Internet at their disposal, that no one,
> nowhere, has any of this "scientifically proven fact", as
> they call it, available for your perusal. <chuckle>
>
> They're LIARS, folks, plain and simple and they HATE
> the fact that they can't fool me! <chuckle>
You can lead a horse to water, but you an't make it drink. If you
refuse to look at the evidence, don't blame the T.O. crowd or the
sciene-community if you did not see it.
You emind me of that farmer in the 53 flood, standing on the roof
shouting "Lord, help me!". A boat arrives and offers to take him off,
but he refuses, laiming "The LORD will help me" and continues to pray.
Another boat arrives and the same thing happens. Later a helicopter
arrives and still the farmer refuses to get off the roof, insisting his
belief is so great, the LORD will help him.
Eventually the roof collapses and the farmer drowns miserably. He meets
his maker and asks: "Why didn't you help me?"
"I didn't help you?" shouts the LORD in indignation, "I bloody well
sent you two boats and a helicopter, but you refused to get on!"
Libertarius
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:01:40 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> <craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>
> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
> >
> >> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
> >>
> >> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
> >
> >> >> 2) He has not provided any of this supposed "mountain
> >> >> of evidence" they claim to have. Rather, all he has, is
> >> >> "imagine if...".
> >> >
> >> >As someone suggested, go to the library and get a book on the
> >> >subject. My library has a whole shelf full of them. You could also
> >> >visit the t.o website.
> >>
> >> And there is the supposed "mountain of evidence".
> >>
> >> They tell you to "Go to a library".
> >>
> >> Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
> >
> >Dave, in case you're not aware of this, that's where we keep all of our
> >mountains of evidence in order to hide it from folks like you. It's all
> >locked up inside. . . you know . . . in BOOKS!
>
> And yet folks, they come into news groups arguing the point
> and also claim that they have shown me this "mountain of
> evidence". How is that possible, when they are later forced
> to admit that they have not and that the best they have is,
> "Go to a library"?
===>Is lying your only way out, fake "pastor"??? -- L.
SJAB1958
You are the liar 'Pastor' Dave, I posted a thread with considerable
evidence and you choose to ignore it. Get yourself a life you naieve
little fool.
Libertarius
SJAB1958 wrote:
===>What do you expect?
The only defense of the truthless nitwit fake "pastor" is to ignore
everything and claim you didn't post anything,
or that YOU lied. -- L.
Josh M.
"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b4r1n1t31l9pt9jfs...@4ax.com...
Why did you ignore the "mountain of evidence" you claimed was lacking? It
was posted just for you and can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/acxjw
> They're LIARS, folks, plain and simple and they HATE
> the fact that they can't fool me! <chuckle>
You're lying by continually claiming that there is no evidence to support
evolution. You're bearing false witness, "Pastor."
scooter
Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> Hey, idiot, since you can't seem to provide one shred of
> this supposed "mountain of evidence", even given the
> fact that you have the time and resources to gather all
> of the information that you want to, don't expect people
> to believe that you went to some presentation and totally
> dismantled this whole presentation, when all you could do
> with all of the resources available to you right now, was
> to say, "Go to the library".
>
> You are A LIAR, plain and simple, dufus! <chuckle>
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> What shall I render to the Lord
> for all His benefits toward me?
> I will take up the cup of salvation
> and call upon the name of the Lord.
> - Psalm 116:12-13
Hey Pastor Dumbass. The onus is not on me to prove supernatural
phenomena given the fact that it wasn't me making the assertion. Again,
if your too stupid to realize that proving supernatural phenomona
cannot be accomplished by any means, much less showing movie clips of
The Matrix and Lord of the Rings, that's your freakin problem.
Moreover, it is not incumbant upon me to provide for your education. If
you want to blame someone for your ignorance, you can look to your
parents for not teaching you that reliable information comes from the
library. Go get a library card and stop trying to put the
responsability of your ignorance on others because you don't want to go
to the library.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>
> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
> >> Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
> >
> >Dave, in case you're not aware of this, that's where we keep all of our
> >mountains of evidence in order to hide it from folks like you. It's all
> >locked up inside. . . you know . . . in BOOKS!
>
> And yet folks, they come into news groups arguing the point
> and also claim that they have shown me this "mountain of
> evidence". How is that possible, when they are later forced
> to admit that they have not and that the best they have is,
> "Go to a library"?
The idea, Dave, is if you have not found what they have provided for
you adequate, the next logical step is to go to the library.
Often, when I can't convince someone of something, I refer them to a
book that can perhaps explain it better than I.
> They also wish to try to convince you, that with all of the
> resources of the Internet at their disposal, that no one,
> nowhere, has any of this "scientifically proven fact", as
> they call it, available for your perusal. <chuckle>
Did you visit the t.o FAQ?
> They're LIARS, folks, plain and simple and they HATE
> the fact that they can't fool me! <chuckle>
You fool yourself.
Pastor Dave
<kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>> Hey, idiot, since you can't seem to provide one shred of
>> this supposed "mountain of evidence", even given the
>> fact that you have the time and resources to gather all
>> of the information that you want to, don't expect people
>> to believe that you went to some presentation and totally
>> dismantled this whole presentation, when all you could do
>> with all of the resources available to you right now, was
>> to say, "Go to the library".
>>
>> You are A LIAR, plain and simple, dufus! <chuckle>
>
>
>Hey Pastor Dumbass. The onus is not on me to prove supernatural
>phenomena given the fact that it wasn't me making the assertion. Again,
>if your too stupid to realize that proving supernatural phenomona
>cannot be accomplished by any means, much less showing movie clips of
>The Matrix and Lord of the Rings, that's your freakin problem.
>Moreover, it is not incumbant upon me to provide for your education. If
>you want to blame someone for your ignorance, you can look to your
>parents for not teaching you that reliable information comes from the
>library. Go get a library card and stop trying to put the
>responsability of your ignorance on others because you don't want to go
>to the library.
Gee, now we know how he supposedly "dismantled the whole
presentation", folks!
He stood up!
He threw his shoulders back!
He shouted out... "You idiot Creationists don't know what
you're talking about and I'm going to prove it!"
Everyone stopped what they were doing!
Everyone turned to him!
The Creationists were trembling with fear!
The evolutionists were drooling in anticipation of the
slamming of the Creationists that was about to happen!
They awaited with eagerness, as this boy was ready
to reveal for them, the indisputable proof for evolution!
So he looked around the room!
Yes, he looked around the room and he slowly formed
a grin with his lips!
He reached into his pocket!
He reached in and... and....
<scroll down>
He pulled out a library card and shouted, "Go to the
library, you morons!".
The Creationists reeled and fell to the floor!
The Creationists were unable to dispute such a barrage
of facts being thrown at them, all at once from this boy
wonder!
The evolutionists jumped up and cheered! The noise of their
shouts of joy, at this boy wonder having totally dismantled
the Creationists presentation was deafening!
<scroll down>
Yes my friend, you certainly showed them! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
Let us note folks, that he thinks that a few web links
amounts to a mountain of evidence. You know, those
same web links that he is unable to even discuss, bit by
bit, in detail. Note also, that the very first web link
shows nothing but an attack on Intelligent Design.
This of course, after the evolutionists complain (falsely)
that all Creationists do, is attack evolution, rather than
present a theory.
So tell me, oh great one... Are you ready to discuss and
defend each and every piece of this supposed "evidence",
IN YOUR OWN WORDS?
And what about the next link, that claims that
microevolution is proof of macroevolution?
In other words folks, they claim that because we have
different types of butterflies, that proves that man came
from ape. <chuckle>
They go on to claim that the fossil record makes "a strong
argument" for evolution. Where has this dork been? I
just finished pasting in quote after quote of famous
evolutionists, admitting that the fossil record is the last
thing anyone should use to try to prove evolution and that
it does not make an argument for evolution.
Or should we go on to the next web site, that claims that
the rock layers are proof? You know, the ones in which they
date the layers by the fossils found in them and the fossils
found in them by the layer they are found in. <chuckle>
So c'mon, dork. Are you ready? You and me, one on one, in
detail, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, with you, ready to respond in
detail on every point made on those web sites?
I doubt you're ready, since you're obviously ignorant
regarding this subject, or you wouldn't have pasted such
nonsense web links, which btw, you had to borrow from
someone else's post. <chuckle>
>> They're LIARS, folks, plain and simple and they HATE
>> the fact that they can't fool me! <chuckle>
>
>You're lying by continually claiming that there is no evidence to support
>evolution. You're bearing false witness, "Pastor."
No, I'm calling you stupid and that certainly is an honest
assessment.
Pastor Dave
<craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>>
>> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
>
>> >> Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
>> >
>> >Dave, in case you're not aware of this, that's where we keep all of our
>> >mountains of evidence in order to hide it from folks like you. It's all
>> >locked up inside. . . you know . . . in BOOKS!
>>
>> And yet folks, they come into news groups arguing the point
>> and also claim that they have shown me this "mountain of
>> evidence". How is that possible, when they are later forced
>> to admit that they have not and that the best they have is,
>> "Go to a library"?
>
>The idea, Dave, is if you have not found what they have provided for
>you adequate, the next logical step is to go to the library.
They idea liar, is that they have not provided anything and
the idea liar, is that you know that and the idea liar, is
that you are lying.
>Did you visit the t.o FAQ?
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/
In other words, you wish to be the next moron who pastes
a web link that has is an archive of a bunch of usenet
posts, written by idiots like you, claiming that it is
proved. <chuckle>
Not one of you idiots is capable of defending what you claim
is proved and not one of you idiots is honest enough to
admit it.
Mark Isaak
"Pastor" Dave apparently wants people to come to his house and
super-glue fossils, petri dishes, etc. to every inch of his body where
he cannot ignore them, and then super-glue more such evidence on top
of that, and so forth until he cannot move. Then, and only then, he
will be happy.
I've got the super glue. What is your address?
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>
> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
> >
> >> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
> >>
> >> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
> >
> >> >> Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
> >> >
> >> >Dave, in case you're not aware of this, that's where we keep all of our
> >> >mountains of evidence in order to hide it from folks like you. It's all
> >> >locked up inside. . . you know . . . in BOOKS!
> >>
> >> And yet folks, they come into news groups arguing the point
> >> and also claim that they have shown me this "mountain of
> >> evidence". How is that possible, when they are later forced
> >> to admit that they have not and that the best they have is,
> >> "Go to a library"?
> >
> >The idea, Dave, is if you have not found what they have provided for
> >you adequate, the next logical step is to go to the library.
>
> They idea liar, is that they have not provided anything and
> the idea liar, is that you know that and the idea liar, is
> that you are lying.
So, while there *is* a "mountain of evidence" in books at the library,
you won't go and look at it because you'd rather complain about being
"lied" to on the Internet?
And you wonder why nobody takes anything you say seriously.
> >Did you visit the t.o FAQ?
> >
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/
>
> In other words, you wish to be the next moron who pastes
> a web link that has is an archive of a bunch of usenet
> posts, written by idiots like you, claiming that it is
> proved. <chuckle>
>
> Not one of you idiots is capable of defending what you claim
> is proved and not one of you idiots is honest enough to
> admit it.
I don't have conversations with people who think the library is a toxic
waste dump to be avoided at all costs.
You also flame like a 10-year-old girl.
scooter
It is interesting the ways in which you fantasize. It isn't surprising,
however, given your condition of discipline to an ancient superstition.
Josh M.
You want to be spoon fed?
> Note also, that the very first web link
> shows nothing but an attack on Intelligent Design.
Evidently you don't know the difference between a critique and an attack.
This is not unusual for fundamentalists; they lack the brain power to
realize that not everything is black and white. They create false
dichotomies, such as "if evolution is true, there is no God; if evolution is
false, there is a God."
> This of course, after the evolutionists complain (falsely)
> that all Creationists do, is attack evolution, rather than
> present a theory.
What do you call quoting out of context, hurling personal insults, arguing
from ignorance, lying, and distorting facts? These are all creationist
debate tactics.
There is no theory of creation; their claims are not testable.
> So tell me, oh great one... Are you ready to discuss and
> defend each and every piece of this supposed "evidence",
> IN YOUR OWN WORDS?
You were the one who asked for the information. I'm not going to dumb it all
down for you. I have better things to do for my time, and even if I didn't,
I know that my effort would be wasted.
> And what about the next link, that claims that
> microevolution is proof of macroevolution?
>
> In other words folks, they claim that because we have
> different types of butterflies, that proves that man came
> from ape. <chuckle>
It says no such thing. You're just being stupid now.
> They go on to claim that the fossil record makes "a strong
> argument" for evolution. Where has this dork been? I
> just finished pasting in quote after quote of famous
> evolutionists, admitting that the fossil record is the last
> thing anyone should use to try to prove evolution and that
> it does not make an argument for evolution.
Quote mining. Oh, that's never been done before.
> Or should we go on to the next web site, that claims that
> the rock layers are proof? You know, the ones in which they
> date the layers by the fossils found in them and the fossils
> found in them by the layer they are found in. <chuckle>
That you read that site and misunderstood it--even though it was clearly
designed so that children can understand it--is truly sad.
> So c'mon, dork.
Dork? How mature.
> Are you ready? You and me, one on one, in
> detail, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, with you, ready to respond in
> detail on every point made on those web sites?
Again, I'm not going to spoon feed you. What you're asking me to do is dumb
it down for you. You are obviously either incapable or unable to learn about
the subject, as evidenced by the fact that you couldn't grasp the
information on the BBC site that's simple enough for children to understand.
Even if all of this is explained to you at a level you can comprehend, we
all know that you won't accept it. You will come up with some ridiculous
argument in a pathetic attempt to refute it--completely oblivious, of
course, to the fact that you're making yourself look like a complete idiot.
You're not interested in learning about evolution; your mind is made up and
your way of thinking is too rigid to change it.
> I doubt you're ready, since you're obviously ignorant
> regarding this subject,
Says the guy who can't understand elementary school level science.
> or you wouldn't have pasted such
> nonsense web links, which btw, you had to borrow from
> someone else's post. <chuckle>
I didn't "borrow" them from anyone. SJAB1958 took the time to find and post
those links _specifically_ for you, as per your request, and you (probably
willfully) ignored them.
>
>>> They're LIARS, folks, plain and simple and they HATE
>>> the fact that they can't fool me! <chuckle>
>>
>>You're lying by continually claiming that there is no evidence to support
>>evolution. You're bearing false witness, "Pastor."
>
> No, I'm calling you stupid and that certainly is an honest
> assessment.
How Christian-like of you.
The above claim--"that thereis no evidence to support evolution" is a lie.
That makes you a liar. This isn't a difficult concept.
Pastor Dave
<kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> spake thusly:
>It is interesting the ways in which you fantasize. It isn't surprising,
>however, given your condition of discipline to an ancient superstition.
Well it must be a fantasy. After all, you showed us all of
that "proof" for evolution right? Oh wait, that's right,
you didn't. Rather, you claimed to have "dismantled
the whole creationist presentation" that you happened
to run across and yet, can't provide any proof here,
with all of the resources you need at your fingertips.
Oh but wait, isn't your attack on my faith now, proof
of macroevolution? Oh yea, it must be, right?
<chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
To do evil is like sport to a fool.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
when you do not perceive in him the
lips of knowledge - Proverbs
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
You see folks, it's okay for them to call you names.
But when you respond by letting them know what
fools they are, all of the sudden, that's wrong.
And let us note that once again, the evolutionist runs away
from the challenge to provide proof. His "link" was shown
for what it is. An attack on creationism and not a response
with proof of macroevolution and he's upset.
Let me translate this for you folks...
"You have found me out. No, I don't know what I'm talking
about. No, I can't discuss it in detail, but I will pretend
that I can. I'm dumb enough to think that I can fool you
into to believing that pasting web links that I cannot go
into detail on, is how we do proper science. I am also dumb
enough to think that I can fool you into believing that
scientific discussion consists of me making a claim, you
asking for proof and then me pasting a web link that doesn't
contain the proof and then you agree that it's proved."
"P.S.: When I insult you, it's a critique. If you say
anything back, or call me foolish, then that' an insult."
Yea, that's about right. :)
<chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
Pastor Dave
<craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>>
>> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
>> >
>> >> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>> >>
>> >> >"Pastor Dave" wrote
>> >
>> >> >> Thank you for exposing yourself as a liar.
>> >> >
>> >> >Dave, in case you're not aware of this, that's where we keep all of our
>> >> >mountains of evidence in order to hide it from folks like you. It's all
>> >> >locked up inside. . . you know . . . in BOOKS!
>> >>
>> >> And yet folks, they come into news groups arguing the point
>> >> and also claim that they have shown me this "mountain of
>> >> evidence". How is that possible, when they are later forced
>> >> to admit that they have not and that the best they have is,
>> >> "Go to a library"?
>> >
>> >The idea, Dave, is if you have not found what they have provided for
>> >you adequate, the next logical step is to go to the library.
>>
>> They idea liar, is that they have not provided anything and
>> the idea liar, is that you know that and the idea liar, is
>> that you are lying.
>
>So, while there *is* a "mountain of evidence" in books at the library,
>you won't go and look at it because you'd rather complain about being
>"lied" to on the Internet?
>
>And you wonder why nobody takes anything you say seriously.
Note folks, he has not provided said evidence, but again
makes the claim. See below.
>> >Did you visit the t.o FAQ?
>> >
>> >http://www.talkorigins.org/
>>
>> In other words, you wish to be the next moron who pastes
>> a web link that has is an archive of a bunch of usenet
>> posts, written by idiots like you, claiming that it is
>> proved. <chuckle>
>>
>> Not one of you idiots is capable of defending what you claim
>> is proved and not one of you idiots is honest enough to
>> admit it.
>
>I don't have conversations with people who think the library is a toxic
>waste dump to be avoided at all costs.
>
>You also flame like a 10-year-old girl.
Note folks, he wishes to claim that I said that the library
is a toxic waste dumb, because I correctly pointed out that
what he offered instead of this supposed "mountain of
evidence", was a web site that contains messages like the
one he wrote, in which they claim to have evidence and never
provide it.
You see folks, he is trying to distract you from the fact
that he can't provide said evidence. talk.origins is not
a library. It is an archive of posts from evolutionists
making claims and never supporting them.
The fact is, the best he has is, "Go to a library".
The fact is, he wants you to believe that with all of the
resources that are at his fingertips, right where he's
sitting, he can't show it to you.
The fact is, he wants you to believe, that in all of the
hundreds of millions of web pages in cyberspace,
that no one has put up this supposed "mountain
of evidence", which they claim exists and that the best
he can show you, is an archive of posts claiming it's true.
So go to the library he tells you, as if any local library
would have anywhere near the mount of information
that is available on the web, which is at his fingertips
and yet, we see nothing. (:
He wants you to believe that he's smart and you're dumb,
so just believe him. The fact is, he isn't very bright and
his posts show that to be the case. The fact is, I have
more information here written by evolutionists than most
local libraries contain on the subject and the proof just
isn't there.
The fact is, he's whining now and he's upset because
like a fool, he saw the title "Pastor" and figured he
had an easy target.
The fact is, it is obvious the man is not educated in the
applicable sciences and he assumed, when he saw
"Pastor", that I wasn't either.
BIG MISTAKE! <chuckle>
And finally, note folks, that after all of these messages,
for the past weeks, we have still not seen proof of
macroevolution, even though they have repeatedly
claimed that it is proved.
And note that while he confirms that he is claiming that
there is a "mountain of evidence" for macroevolution,
he has been able to come up with ANYTHING that
proves his claim. he has NOTHING! And note how he
now claims that this "mountain of evidence" is at the
library, trying to dishonestly change his claim. <chuckle>
Only a moron would think that anyone is going to be fooled
by repeated claims of having the evidence, only to read,
"Go to the library". BAWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
Josh M.
You're the one who started the name calling. The majority of the posts of
yours that I've read are rife with insults.
> But when you respond by letting them know what
> fools they are, all of the sudden, that's wrong.
You did nothing but spit out juvenile insults.
> And let us note that once again, the evolutionist runs away
> from the challenge to provide proof.
You asked for evidence, and SJAB1958 provided plenty of links for you. It's
not my fault that you didn't look over them or couldn't understand the
information (I'm guessing it's a combination of the two).
The information is right there for you, as per your request. Instead of
reading and at least attempting understand what was given to you--what _you_
requested--you dismissed all of it and criticized us, apparently, for not
dumbing it down for you. _You_ are the one doing the running.
As I said before, regardless of what evidence you're shown, you're going to
scoff at it and dismiss it. You, with your rigid style of thinking, have
already made up your mind that evolution is false, and there is nothing we
can say to change that. You lack the maturity and intellectual honesty to
accept ideas based on evidence rather than faith alone.
> His "link" was shown
> for what it is. An attack on creationism and not a response
> with proof of macroevolution and he's upset.
Where is the attack you're talking about?
> Let me translate this for you folks...
>
> "You have found me out. No, I don't know what I'm talking
> about. No, I can't discuss it in detail, but I will pretend
> that I can. I'm dumb enough to think that I can fool you
> into to believing that pasting web links
That's funny coming from someone who posts quotes--out of context, no
less--as "proof" that his argument is correct.
> that I cannot go
> into detail on, is how we do proper science. I am also dumb
> enough to think that I can fool you into believing that
> scientific discussion consists of me making a claim,
No, this is what creationists such as yourself do: make claims without
providing any evidence.
> you asking for proof and then me pasting a web link that doesn't
> contain the proof and then you agree that it's proved."
Again, you've demonstrated that you don't know how science works. Theories
cannot be proven.
Pastor Dave
<n...@thanks.com> spake thusly:
>You asked for evidence, and SJAB1958 provided plenty of links for you.
He provided zero evidence. I responded to his post.
You conveniently ignore that I proved that they did not
contain any evidence whatsoever for macroevolution
and that what information they did have, was outdated
and incorrect and had been refuted in the past and
I refuted it again in my response. His response? To
point me to talk.origins, which is an archive of posts
by evolutionists claiming that it happened and providing
zero proof. But you go ahead and pretend that didn't
happen.
The fact is, I challenged both of you to a detailed
discussion, when you post garbage like that. Both
of you run away from that challenge and then try to
claim that I'm the one who is being dishonest.
>It's
>not my fault that you didn't look over them or couldn't understand the
>information (I'm guessing it's a combination of the two).
See above, stupid.
The fact is, that you people repeatedly claim to have proof
and a "mountain of evidence" and not one of you can
back up your claims. I RESPOND to YOUR claims.
You are liars and you hate me because I can and have
proved that.
Libertarius
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:23:49 -0600, "Josh M."
> <n...@thanks.com> spake thusly:
>
> >You asked for evidence, and SJAB1958 provided plenty of links for you.
>
> He provided zero evidence. I responded to his post.
> You conveniently ignore that I proved that they did not
> contain any evidence whatsoever for macroevolution
> and that what information they did have, was outdated
> and incorrect and had been refuted in the past and
> I refuted it again in my response.
===>You refuted NOTHING, LIAR!
DENIAL does not constitute refutation. -- L.
SJAB1958
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:23:49 -0600, "Josh M."
> <n...@thanks.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >You asked for evidence, and SJAB1958 provided plenty of links for you.
>
> He provided zero evidence. I responded to his post.
> You conveniently ignore that I proved that they did not
> contain any evidence whatsoever for macroevolution
> and that what information they did have, was outdated
> and incorrect and had been refuted in the past and
> I refuted it again in my response. His response? To
> point me to talk.origins, which is an archive of posts
> by evolutionists claiming that it happened and providing
> zero proof. But you go ahead and pretend that didn't
> happen.
Excuse me pasta man, I did not tell you to go to talk.origins, you are
the liar in here.
> The fact is, I challenged both of you to a detailed
> discussion, when you post garbage like that. Both
> of you run away from that challenge and then try to
> claim that I'm the one who is being dishonest.
>
>
> >It's
> >not my fault that you didn't look over them or couldn't understand the
> >information (I'm guessing it's a combination of the two).
>
> See above, stupid.
>
> The fact is, that you people repeatedly claim to have proof
> and a "mountain of evidence" and not one of you can
> back up your claims. I RESPOND to YOUR claims.
>
> You are liars and you hate me because I can and have
> proved that.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> Preaching the truth of Scripture,
> from Creation to Revelation!
>
> http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
Your own following comment describes you to a tee.
John Drayton
<snip>
> The fact is, he wants you to believe, that in all of the
> hundreds of millions of web pages in cyberspace,
> that no one has put up this supposed "mountain
> of evidence", which they claim exists and that the best
> he can show you, is an archive of posts claiming it's true.
>
> So go to the library he tells you, as if any local library
> would have anywhere near the mount of information
> that is available on the web, which is at his fingertips
> and yet, we see nothing. (:
I'm puzzled. Just what sort of evidence are you looking
for, and how do you think it would be presented?
What do you expected to see online?
--
John Drayon
scooter
Pastor Dave wrote:
> >
> >
> >It is interesting the ways in which you fantasize. It isn't surprising,
> >however, given your condition of discipline to an ancient superstition.
>
> Well it must be a fantasy. After all, you showed us all of
> that "proof" for evolution right? Oh wait, that's right,
> you didn't. Rather, you claimed to have "dismantled
> the whole creationist presentation" that you happened
> to run across and yet, can't provide any proof here,
> with all of the resources you need at your fingertips.
>
> Oh but wait, isn't your attack on my faith now, proof
> of macroevolution? Oh yea, it must be, right?
>
> <chuckle>
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> Preaching the truth of Scripture,
> from Creation to Revelation!
>
> http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
>
> To do evil is like sport to a fool.
> Go from the presence of a foolish man,
> when you do not perceive in him the
> lips of knowledge - Proverbs
Dumbass Dave, I don't know how to explain this to you any more than I
already have. Who said that a presentation about the validity of the
supernatural has/had anything to do with evolution? Let me answer that
for you: YOU DID. Why? Because you are presumptuous moron who thinks
because he has "pastor" in front of his name it somehow makes him an
authority on everything from evolutionary biology to the
"supernatural". Your a freakin idiot who continually distorts and bears
false witness with little regard for your own religious tenets.
I can understand why you refuse to go to the library: You can't even
seem to comprehend a 1 paragraph post much less any sort of text book
that has more than 1 chapter.
Why don't you show us the proof for your "god"? That way you can end
this discussion. Oh wait, you don't have any evidence of any kind
anywhere. Dumbass.
Pastor Dave
<kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> spake thusly:
>
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >It is interesting the ways in which you fantasize. It isn't surprising,
>> >however, given your condition of discipline to an ancient superstition.
>>
>> Well it must be a fantasy. After all, you showed us all of
>> that "proof" for evolution right? Oh wait, that's right,
>> you didn't. Rather, you claimed to have "dismantled
>> the whole creationist presentation" that you happened
>> to run across and yet, can't provide any proof here,
>> with all of the resources you need at your fingertips.
>>
>> Oh but wait, isn't your attack on my faith now, proof
>> of macroevolution? Oh yea, it must be, right?
>>
>> <chuckle>
>
>
>Dumbass Dave, I don't know how to explain this to you any more than I
>already have. Who said that a presentation about the validity of the
>supernatural has/had anything to do with evolution? Let me answer that
>for you: YOU DID. Why? Because you are presumptuous moron who thinks
>because he has "pastor" in front of his name it somehow makes him an
>authority on everything from evolutionary biology to the
>"supernatural". Your a freakin idiot who continually distorts and bears
>false witness with little regard for your own religious tenets.
>
> I can understand why you refuse to go to the library: You can't even
>seem to comprehend a 1 paragraph post much less any sort of text book
>that has more than 1 chapter.
>
>Why don't you show us the proof for your "god"? That way you can end
>this discussion. Oh wait, you don't have any evidence of any kind
>anywhere. Dumbass.
Ah yes, now he repeats the "prove God" argument,
as expected. Yes folks, that is proof for evolution.
He wants to lie and try to convince you that to logically
and scientifically conclude intelligent design is not
scientific. In other words, even though he knows
what he believes cannot be proved and even though
he knows he's been caught lying, he will continue to
believe it, making this excuse.
See sig, fool.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
He who despises the word will be destroyed.
- Proverbs (assorted)
Pastor Dave
<bitbu...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
And there it is folks. Once again, another moron steps in
to ask, "What kind of evidence do you want?" and tries
to play dumb, as if they don't know what is required to
prove macroevolution.
He also wants you to think that in the entire cyberspace
world, it would be impossible to prove it, if said proof
existed. The fact is, there is nothing in a library that
one cannot find proof of online, if said proof exists.
The fact is folks, he is another moron who claims it's true,
provides no proof and then knowingly tries to turn the
tables and turn it into a discussion in which he will try
to take me round and round in circles and never show
this supposed "mountain of evidence".
Your foolish games are just that. Foolish games.
Put up, or shut up.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
SJAB1958
have offered evidence to support the evolutionary theories. But you do
nothing but ridicule, insult and ignore. Show evidence that evolution
hasnt happened and that your 'god' intervened at any given point in the
formation of the universe or anything else in it and we will listen to
you. Unlike you choosing not to listen to any of us. You are pathetic,
devious, egotistical and a blatant liar yourself.
explainer
mean people who embrace creation and science I would include Jesus (a
pure guess of course), Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, President
Jimmy Carter, St. Paul, Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Kenneth Miller,
myself and so many others, especially many Christian, Jewish, Muslim,
believers of other religions, and even several humanists I know.
This world is loaded with serious minded people. Some of them are
creationists; some aren't; some could care less. Of course, we must
have different definitions of creationist.
My definition of a creationist is someone who believes in Source, a
creative something, as the causative essence of everything there is.
You can name or not, we believe.
John Wilkins
Theodosius Dobzhansky, when he said he was both a creationist (as a Russian
Orthodox Christian) and an evolutionist (in the technical sense of
evolutionary biologist). Jimmy Carter, King, Ken Miller and most theists of
any education would fall into this category.
However that is not the usual meaning. In modern parlance, "creationist" means
someone who thinks evolution is false, that all species (or "kinds") were
created as they are now, and that *science* is supposed to support these
beliefs. This is the minority view of (largely) biblical or quranic
literalists, although there is also a minority view of Catholics as well. I do
not think that the same term ought to incorporate both kinds of "creationist";
so we should really make the distinction.
I propose that we just use "theist" for the broader term - it implies a
creator god separate from the world - and leave "creationist" for the latter view.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Libertarius
Pastor Dave wrote:
===>No, that is NOT "proof" for anything.
You are a LIAR! It is only
a request that you define what you are talking about
and explain how you can prove it.
> He wants to lie and try to convince you that to logically
> and scientifically conclude intelligent design is not
> scientific.
===>You CANNOT "logically
and scientifically conclude intelligent design".
I.D. is like Sherlock Holmes saying he has no
idea how the crime happened but he is sure
some extraterrestrial intelligence did it. -- L.
Libertarius
SJAB1958 wrote:
===>You are asking too much.
You know he cannot even DEFINE that "god", nor can he
offer any means of PROVING the existence of any "god",
so how could he find any evidence that his undefined,
unprovable entity "intervened" in anything? ;-) -- L.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
> >So, while there *is* a "mountain of evidence" in books at the library,
> >you won't go and look at it because you'd rather complain about being
> >"lied" to on the Internet?
> >
> >And you wonder why nobody takes anything you say seriously.
>
> Note folks, he has not provided said evidence, but again
> makes the claim. See below.
My claim is there is a mountain of evidence *in the library*.
> You see folks, he is trying to distract you from the fact
> that he can't provide said evidence.
If you can't afford a library card (it's free where I live), I'll send you
the money for one. The Borders where I live lets you read for as
long as you wish.
> So go to the library he tells you, as if any local library
> would have anywhere near the mount of information
> that is available on the web, which is at his fingertips
> and yet, we see nothing. (:
The Web is not as reliable as the book publishing industry. You'll
get a lot of contradictory statements on the Web, which throw all
into question. I would never form an opinion on Creationism based
on WWW sources. Or from what people such as yourself tell me.
I researched by traditional methods, which is the most reliable way
to go about such things.
But thanks for admitting that you don't believe in evolution even
though you have looked at none of the compelling evidence for it.
I didn't think it was possible, but your opinion on this matter is now
even more worthless than before.
> The fact is, he's whining now and he's upset because
> like a fool, he saw the title "Pastor" and figured he
> had an easy target.
>
> The fact is, it is obvious the man is not educated in the
> applicable sciences and he assumed, when he saw
> "Pastor", that I wasn't either.
>
> BIG MISTAKE! <chuckle>
I have known a number of Pastors, and none of them have been as
mean spirited and petty as yourself. I don't know as I'd trust you with
my house pet, much less my soul.
Pastor Dave
<craig....@verizon.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" spake thusly:
>
>> >So, while there *is* a "mountain of evidence" in books at the library,
>> >you won't go and look at it because you'd rather complain about being
>> >"lied" to on the Internet?
>> >
>> >And you wonder why nobody takes anything you say seriously.
>>
>> Note folks, he has not provided said evidence, but again
>> makes the claim. See below.
>
>My claim is there is a mountain of evidence *in the library*.
Sorry son, that came later.
>> You see folks, he is trying to distract you from the fact
>> that he can't provide said evidence.
>
>If you can't afford a library card (it's free where I live), I'll send you
>the money for one. The Borders where I live lets you read for as
>long as you wish.
You can try to ridicule me all you wish. I am not the one
claiming it's true and then failing to provide the proof.
>> So go to the library he tells you, as if any local library
>> would have anywhere near the mount of information
>> that is available on the web, which is at his fingertips
>> and yet, we see nothing. (:
>
>The Web is not as reliable as the book publishing industry. You'll
>get a lot of contradictory statements on the Web, which throw all
>into question. I would never form an opinion on Creationism based
>on WWW sources. Or from what people such as yourself tell me.
>I researched by traditional methods, which is the most reliable way
>to go about such things.
>
>But thanks for admitting that you don't believe in evolution even
>though you have looked at none of the compelling evidence for it.
>
>I didn't think it was possible, but your opinion on this matter is now
>even more worthless than before.
I didn't think you'd be able to admit that you're a liar and
that you believe evolutionist as a philosophy, which is all
it is anyway.
I think you have been made to look foolish enough and
it is clear that you have no proof to provide.
The fact is, the stupidity that you guys show here, would
never be tolerated by real scientists. They be more likely
to smack you one upside your head for being so stupid.
>> The fact is, he's whining now and he's upset because
>> like a fool, he saw the title "Pastor" and figured he
>> had an easy target.
>>
>> The fact is, it is obvious the man is not educated in the
>> applicable sciences and he assumed, when he saw
>> "Pastor", that I wasn't either.
>>
>> BIG MISTAKE! <chuckle>
>
>I have known a number of Pastors, and none of them have been as
>mean spirited and petty as yourself. I don't know as I'd trust you with
>my house pet, much less my soul.
Oh, is that you problem? I haven't been "nice" to you?
Gee, I'm sorry. I didn't know I was supposed to pretend
that liars are actually honest people and stroke their
ego for them. (:
Have a nice life.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
scooter
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2005 13:50:51 -0800, "scooter"
> <kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> spake thusly:
>
> >
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> >
>
> Ah yes, now he repeats the "prove God" argument,
> as expected. Yes folks, that is proof for evolution.
Ahh yes. He wants to try and change the subject, yet again, from the
supernatural to evolution. Alright, I'll play. You believe in ID and
creationism? Then prove it. Where's the mountains of evidence
supporting ID? Oh, I forgot,there isn't a shred of evidence to support
your claim to be found anywhere. Instead, he wants to lie and try and
convince you that because he hasn't read a book on evolution that they
somehow don't exist and therefore evolution is false.
He lies about there being a supernatural being and tries to convince
you that there is even though there is absolutly not a single shred of
evidence anywhere ever to be found to support his claim. To defend his
position he claims that we are liars and that libraries do not contain
the evidence that the whole world knows exists--as if that somehow
validates his belief in his "god". Why does he do this? Because he
must. The alternative would mean that his entire life has been a
lie--something he is too afraid to face. He's a wuss.
John Baker
"Disaster" Dave the liar and fraud wants to see a cow give birth to a
horse. Then and only then will he admit evolution is a fact.
Typical of the ass-backwards "thinking" of most creationists that
they'll only accept evolution as proven if something happened that
would actually totally *disprove* it. <G>
bitbu...@hotmail.com
> On 10 Nov 2005 13:36:39 -0800, "John Drayton"
> <bitbu...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> The fact is, he wants you to believe, that in all of the
> >> hundreds of millions of web pages in cyberspace,
> >> that no one has put up this supposed "mountain
> >> of evidence", which they claim exists and that the best
> >> he can show you, is an archive of posts claiming it's true.
> >>
> >> So go to the library he tells you, as if any local library
> >> would have anywhere near the mount of information
> >> that is available on the web, which is at his fingertips
> >> and yet, we see nothing. (:
> >
> >I'm puzzled. Just what sort of evidence are you looking
> >for, and how do you think it would be presented?
> >
> >What do you expected to see online?
>
> And there it is folks. Once again, another moron steps in
> to ask, "What kind of evidence do you want?" and tries
> to play dumb, as if they don't know what is required to
> prove macroevolution.
I'm actually genuinely interested in what kind of
evidence you would consider convincing.
> He also wants you to think that in the entire cyberspace
> world, it would be impossible to prove it, if said proof
> existed.
Not at all. I think there's a lot of compelling
evidence available online. It's just not clear to
me what sort of evidencee you would consider
compelling.
> The fact is, there is nothing in a library that
> one cannot find proof of online, if said proof exists.
>
> The fact is folks, he is another moron who claims it's true,
Perhaps it was moronic of me to think that you
would actually be interested in engaging in
discussion.
> provides no proof and then knowingly tries to turn the
> tables and turn it into a discussion in which he will try
> to take me round and round in circles and never show
> this supposed "mountain of evidence".
Clearly many people - most scientists for example -
find some of the available evidence for evolutionary
theory convincing. You apparently don't.
But without any idea of what sort of evidence you
would find convincing, there seems little point
in producing any evidence, let alone a "mountain
of evidence".
I'm not claiming that I personally have "proof"
that I an give you. I'm simply asking what kind of
evidence you would find find convincing.
> Your foolish games are just that. Foolish games.
>
> Put up, or shut up.
Put up what? What sort of evidence would be
compelling for you?
Bob
>
>You're full of crap.
>Fundies have no problem with science
and the klan has no problem with blacks...
but when it comes to the dogma of
>evolution (DoE), given the dearth of evidence to support it, one needn't
>be a fundamentalist Christian in order to repudiate it.
except, it seems, ONLY fundies oppose science...
>
> From the lack of evidence to support abiogenesis
irrelevant to evolution...
, all the way to the
>myriad hoaxes in paleontology,
myriad? really? care to cite this 'myriad'?
oh. you can't.
to the scant data in the genes and to the
>flagrant scarcity of any tangible benefit to mankind-with the exception
>of how it readily supports a moral relativists' agenda and naturalists'
>ideological proclivities-DoE is as useless as a tit on a bull.
>
>Nicolas
other than his assertions he's got no argument at all.
but it MUST be true because it's his religion...
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Mark Isaak
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
>Put up, or shut up.
You have said repeatedly that you will not acknoweldge any evidence
that you are not literally beat over the head with. What is your
address?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Libertarius
bitbu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> > On 10 Nov 2005 13:36:39 -0800, "John Drayton"
> > <bitbu...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> >
> > >Pastor Dave wrote:
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> The fact is, he wants you to believe, that in all of the
> > >> hundreds of millions of web pages in cyberspace,
> > >> that no one has put up this supposed "mountain
> > >> of evidence", which they claim exists and that the best
> > >> he can show you, is an archive of posts claiming it's true.
> > >>
> > >> So go to the library he tells you, as if any local library
> > >> would have anywhere near the mount of information
> > >> that is available on the web, which is at his fingertips
> > >> and yet, we see nothing. (:
> > >
> > >I'm puzzled. Just what sort of evidence are you looking
> > >for, and how do you think it would be presented?
> > >
> > >What do you expected to see online?
> >
> > And there it is folks. Once again, another moron steps in
> > to ask, "What kind of evidence do you want?" and tries
> > to play dumb, as if they don't know what is required to
> > prove macroevolution.
>
> I'm actually genuinely interested in what kind of
> evidence you would consider convincing.
===>Don't you get it?
He is ALREADY convinced that ONLY GENESIS can be true.
So, NOTHING ELSE can possibly be convincing for him! -- L.
>