Hmmm! Why, I'll be an uncle's monkey!
Ed Conrad
Back once again, by unpopular demand, is a repeat of that
fascinating news item that is reprinted verbatim -- along with
the original headline -- straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel,
a daily newspaper, in August 1881:
...
-----0-----
> =======================
> AN ALLEGED FOSSIL MAN
> =======================
About three miles from Ashley, a Mr. McCauley has the contract
from the Wilkes-Barre Coal & Iron Co. for sinking a coal shaft.
It is twenty feet square and is intended to have two tracks for
carriages to run in hoisting up the coal, and is said to be the
largest opening of the kind in the coal regions.
It is located near the base of the mountain and has reached a
depth of 475 feet.
Saturday last, when the gang, or what is known as the second shift
of men, were about retiring, after firing off a course of holes, Tom
Cassidy, the foreman, descended the shaft to ascertain the result of
the explosion, and was astonished to find an immense cavity in one of
the sides of the shaft.
The explosion appeared to have a terrible effect and caused more
damage than benefit on one side, but his astonishment was still
greater increased on clearing away some of the refuse of the rock
blown by the shots to discover a solid mass of rock in which appears a
clearly-defined human shape of giant proportions.
All the limbs, muscles and linaments are apparent. The rock is
about 16 feet in length, 18 in breadth, and about 8 in thickness. The
dimensions of the human frame are giantly, measuring 12 feet in length
and 4 feet across the chest.
Across the breast is the impression of a huge shield, about four
feet in circumference, while the right hand clutches the broken and
butt end of a large cutlass or sword.
The rock was taken out whole and is now in possession of Mr.
McCauley in Ashley.
~~~~~~
Ed Conrad
> http://www.sunlink.net/~edconrad/
Boikat
So, where is it now? (You might want to look into
these sorts of things if the "Sightings" crew
should contact you. They would want to know too.)
Boikat
Boikat
>
> Back once again, by unpopular demand, is a repeat of that
> fascinating news item that is reprinted verbatim -- along with
> the original headline -- straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel,
> a daily newspaper, in August 1881:
> ...
Senility setting in Ed? You just posted this.
But I'll ask the same question that I always ask
when you regurgipost this article, yet you *never*
seem to address: Where is the specimen now?
Also, in the 1880's it wasn't uncommon for pieces
of fiction to be published in news papers, how do
we know this isn't a "prelude" to a fiction
series?
[snip "news" article about a twelve foot tall dead
guy, supposedly with armor, shield and broken
sword.]
Boikat
Jthomford
>Back once again, by unpopular demand,
We asked for evidence, Ed, not century-old National Enquirer fodder.
"Brethren, they can lock us up, but we'll still do what the Bible tells us to
do. Either our wives are going to obey, or we're going to beat them!" - Rev.
Fred Phelps, noted homophobe.
ZeldaG
From: edco...@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 12/8/98 2:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <366cfcb...@news.sunlink.net>
Back once again, by unpopular demand, is a repeat of that
fascinating news item that is reprinted verbatim -- along with
the original headline -- straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel,
a daily newspaper, in August 1881:
...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Z:
Let us guess, this evidence disappeared along with John Smith's gold tablets?
jeff wiel
Where is it now?
Do you have any evidence of its existance beyond one newspaper report over
100 years old?
Will you ever rise above being a 4th rate Charles Fort impersonator?
[snip]
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
Like most evolutionists, you get your facts just a little bit skewed. The man
with the (supposed) gold tablets, and the 'magic' specticles (the urum and
thumum) was Joseph Smith, not John.
--
American Patriot
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
geo...@usa.net
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <19981208120206...@ng119.aol.com>,
> zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
[snip funny stuff]
> > Z:
> > Let us guess, this evidence disappeared along with John Smith's gold
tablets?
> >
> >
>
> Like most evolutionists, you get your facts just a little bit skewed. The man
> with the (supposed) gold tablets, and the 'magic' specticles (the urum and
> thumum) was Joseph Smith, not John.
I see - whenever an evolutionist makes a mistake, it discredits the
entire field of evolution.
You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid.
--
Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
Mike Kean
Ed Conrad <edco...@sunlink.net> wrote in message
news:366cfcb...@news.sunlink.net...
>
>Back once again, by unpopular demand, is a repeat of that
>fascinating news item that is reprinted verbatim -- along with
>the original headline -- straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel,
>a daily newspaper, in August 1881:
>...
> -----0-----
>> =======================
>> AN ALLEGED FOSSIL MAN
>> =======================
>
<snip>
At the bottom is a more credible story just appearing. This from the news
pages of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation www.abc.net.au/news
Apologies for formatting, I've cut and pasted from the web site.
Mike
PS: Ed, I've commented before on your National Enquirer style of presenting
things. Thank you for confirming my statements.
Scientists find three-million-year-old skeleton
Wednesday 9 December, 1998 (8:23am AEDT)
South African anthropologists have discovered a human-like skeleton dating
back three million years.
The remains of the almost complete skeleton have been hailed the most
significant anthropological find since the Taung skull was unearthed in
1924.
Researchers are expected to reveal more about humankind's most distant
ancestor at a news conference late tonight or early tomorrow.
The University of the Witwatersrand, whose researcher Ron Clarke found the
remains of the human ancestor, says "nothing like it of such a great age has
ever been found in the world".
The world's oldest fossilised human footprints, estimated to be 117,000
years old and dubbed "Eve's footprints", were discovered in Langebaan, about
80 kilometres north-west of Cape Town, last year.
Evan Thompson
Conrad) wrote:
-- straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel,
> a daily newspaper, in August 1881:
> a solid mass of rock in which appears a
> clearly-defined human shape of giant proportions.
>
> All the limbs, muscles and linaments are apparent. The rock is
> about 16 feet in length, 18 in breadth, and about 8 in thickness. The
> dimensions of the human frame are giantly, measuring 12 feet in length
> and 4 feet across the chest.
Are you talking about the Cardiff Giant?
The date is a few years late, so more likely this was the work of one of
many copycats trying to cash in on the giant's popularity.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
geo...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <74k0na$dbt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <19981208120206...@ng119.aol.com>,
> > zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
>
> [snip funny stuff]
>
> > > Z:
> > > Let us guess, this evidence disappeared along with John Smith's gold
> tablets?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Like most evolutionists, you get your facts just a little bit skewed. The
man
> > with the (supposed) gold tablets, and the 'magic' specticles (the urum and
> > thumum) was Joseph Smith, not John.
>
> I see - whenever an evolutionist makes a mistake, it discredits the
> entire field of evolution.
Of course not, and that's not what I said. Evolution is discredited by the
evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a belief
system.
>
> You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid.
I'm doing quite well, but thank you for your concern.
And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your fears
too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
>
> --
> Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
--
American Patriot
Herb Huston
What evidence?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
Ed Conrad
>Ed Conrad <edco...@sunlink.net> wrote in message
>news:366cfcb...@news.sunlink.net...
>>
>>Back once again, by unpopular demand, is a repeat of that
>>fascinating news item that is reprinted verbatim -- along with
>>the original headline -- straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel,
>>a daily newspaper, in August 1881:
>>...
>> -----0-----
>>> =======================
>>> AN ALLEGED FOSSIL MAN
>>> =======================
><snip>
>
>At the bottom is a more credible story just appearing. This from the news
>pages of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation www.abc.net.au/news
>
>Apologies for formatting, I've cut and pasted from the web site.
>
>Mike
>
>PS: Ed, I've commented before on your National Enquirer style of presenting
>things. Thank you for confirming my statements.
>
You're welcome!
Nowthen, Mike, thanks for providing thegood folks with the unedited
version of the South African discovery story. The following edited
version just moved on the AP wire.
======================================
>Scientists find three-million-year-old skeleton
>South African anthropologists have discovered a human-like skeleton dating
>back three million years.
>
>The remains of the almost complete skeleton have been hailed the most
>significant anthropological find since
Ed Conrad discovered the first of his menagerie
of petrified human bones and soft organs in the Carboniferous-dated
anthracite fields of Pennsylvania in June 1981.
The human skeleton found in South Africa is considered a spring
chicken when compared to the age of Conrad's specimens dated at
280,163,134 years (plus/minus 17 years).-
>
>Researchers are expected to reveal more about humankind's most distant
>ancestor at a news conference late tonight or early tomorrow
after they hours sharpening up their rhetoric. But anyone with half a
brain -- even Henry Barwood -- knows it doesn't add up to a hill of
beans, although the sound and the smell bear a distinct similiarity.
>The University of the Witwatersrand, whose researcher Ron Clarke found the
>remains of the human ancestor, says "nothing like it of such a great age has
>ever been found in the world
except for those incredible discoveries by Ed Conrad."
>The world's oldest fossilised human footprints, estimated to be 117,000
>years old and dubbed "Eve's footprints", were discovered in Langebaan, about
>80 kilometres north-west of Cape Town, last year.
Of course, this too, is insignficant compared to the handcarved ax
handle -- petrified, of course -- that was discovered by Ed Conrad
along with those petrified human remains and has been dated at
280,163,133 years (plus/minus 17 years).
Ed Conrad
evanPOTTEDMEATFO...@earthlink.net (Evan Thompson) wrote:
>In article <366cfcb...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed
>Conrad) wrote:
>
>-- straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel,
>> a daily newspaper, in August 1881:
>> a solid mass of rock in which appears a
>> clearly-defined human shape of giant proportions.
>>
>> All the limbs, muscles and linaments are apparent. The rock is
>> about 16 feet in length, 18 in breadth, and about 8 in thickness. The
>> dimensions of the human frame are giantly, measuring 12 feet in length
>> and 4 feet across the chest.
>
>Are you talking about the Cardiff Giant?
>The date is a few years late, so more likely this was the work of one of
>many copycats trying to cash in on the giant's popularity.
Actually, Chuck, the Cardiff Giant came later. I'd say the hoaxers
derived their moneymaking scheme after someone e-mailed them
a copy of the article in the Hazleton Sentinel.
>
Ed Conrad
>In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Evolution is discredited by the evidence, [...]
>
>What evidence?
>
>-- Herb Huston
>-- hus...@access.digex.net
Now look HERE, Herb, you have no right asking such a dumb question,
especially here in talk.origins. Don't you know most of us know it
ALL -- and then some! What you're asking is beneath our dignity.
Another thing, your question has been asked many, many
times before. In fact, if my bookkeeping is correct, I've asked just
about that very same question 215 times in the past year alone
(17 times since Thanksgiving).
OF course, MY question is whether ANYONE can present even an
mini-milligram of undeniable scientific evidence backing up the
erroneous theory of the evolution of man. Alas, nobody ever answers
and I think I'm catching pneumonia from all those cold shoulders.
Ed Conrad
http://www.sunlink.net/~edconrad/evidence/html
Martin Smith
<snip>
>And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything.
That is a common feature of psychopathy. Maybe you should seek
professional help.
<snip>
>American Patriot
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Martin Smith
Cardiff
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> }evidence, [...]
>
> What evidence?
>
> --
> -- Herb Huston
> -- hus...@access.digex.net
>
>
Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
--
Ken Cox
> Of course not, and that's not what I said. Evolution is discredited by the
> evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a belief
> system.
You keep saying that. Could you list some of this evidence, so we
can see what you're talking about?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Martin Smith) wrote:
> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>
> >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything.
>
> That is a common feature of psychopathy. Maybe you should seek
> professional help.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
>
> Cardiff
>
>
So, in the infinite wisdom of modern 'science', anyone who isn't afraid needs
professional help? Sure am glad I'm not caught in the psychobabble of the
month club!
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
> > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >
> > What evidence?
> >
> > --
> > -- Herb Huston
> > -- hus...@access.digex.net
> > -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
> >
> >
>
> Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
> the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
Have mercy on the poor fellow! Maybe he is as allergic to ABBAs *) as I am; I
had to stop after one subject and take my anti-histamine pills ....
* ABBA = Argument By Bland Assertion
HRG.
> --
> American Patriot
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating errors,
overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age, studies
on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged NOT
in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line (ie
- equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence. No matter how well
documented, every one of these will be denied in your FAQ's, which I will be
told to read (again) as punishment for daring to post the truth to the TO
newsgroup. If you really want to know, check out the christiananswers site.
I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake, so don't normally go
into all this stuff that has been hashed out over and over in the past; I
prefer to post new things I run across. That way, I can be called an
uneducated idiot for NEW stuff instead of for OLD stuff.
:^)
geo...@usa.net
>
> And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your fears
> too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
>
You seem to be pretty afraid of evolution, kind of like the
proverbial ostrich.
[snip]
> --
> American Patriot
--
Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
geo...@usa.net
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> >
> > What evidence?
> >
> > --
> > -- Herb Huston
> > -- hus...@access.digex.net
> > -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
> >
> >
>
> Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
> the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
That is quite a penalty.
But, perhaps a reference to a peer-reviewed journal would be more useful.
At least a complaint that there is a conspiracy to keep your
evidence out of the journals would be amusing, considering the
origin of this thread.
Jthomford
>Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
>the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
It's been done and addressed many times. Not paying attention?
Jthomford
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>So, in the infinite wisdom of modern 'science', anyone who isn't afraid needs
>professional help?
Actually, its a truism that someone without fear is either insane or a fool. It
has nothing at all to do with bravery, which is the process of proceeding in
the face of fear.
Jthomford
Ed Conrad wishfully editorialized:
>>The remains of the almost complete skeleton have been hailed the most
>>significant anthropological find since
> Ed Conrad discovered the first of his menagerie
>of petrified human bones and soft organs in the Carboniferous-dated
>anthracite fields of Pennsylvania in June 1981.
Say- I wonder if this new find is where Andrew put those Haversian canals
after he stole them from your specimens?
Mike Kean
>>
>>PS: Ed, I've commented before on your National Enquirer style of
presenting
>>things. Thank you for confirming my statements.
>>
>You're welcome!
>
So Mr Ed, (I think I may be insulting a TV horse)
You admit that your journalistic style and credibility are the same as the
National Enquirer?
Ken Cox
> No matter how well
> documented, every one of these will be denied in your FAQ's, which I will be
> told to read (again) as punishment for daring to post the truth to the TO
> newsgroup.
Actually, one point of the FAQs is that most of the things you
listed (radiometric dating, C-decay, etc.) aren't truth, and the
FAQs explain just why they are wrong.
Another point is that we see them so often, even though most of
them were known to be false decades or centuries ago, that it
was just faster to put them in a FAQ.
> If you really want to know, check out the christiananswers site.
If you did pull the above from the christiananswers site, doesn't
it bother you at all that they are putting up things that are
false, and that have been known to be false for such a long time?
Imagine the effect on someone who wants to understand more about
Christ, if they go to that site and the first thing they see is
something that they know is wrong.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Tedd Hadley
|There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating errors,
|overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age, studies
|on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged NOT
|in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line (ie
|- equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
|created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence. No matter how well
|documented, every one of these will be denied in your FAQ's, which I will be
|told to read (again) as punishment for daring to post the truth to the TO
|newsgroup. If you really want to know, check out the christiananswers site.
You really should consider the possibility that the majority of
these claims have been manufactured by creationists who
misunderstand the evidence and are motivated by a fear that
evolution constitutes a threat to their religious beliefs. When
each claim is examined in detail, they are usually found to be
wanting.
You are apparently even ignorant that some of these claims have
been rejected by creationists themselves; for example, decreasing
C. Have you read Impact #179 by Gerald E. Aardsma put out by
the Institute for Creation Research? It contains the following
paragraph:
"Measurements of the speed of light have been made for the past
three hundred years which could potentially provide the required
empirical basis. Norman and Setterfield tabulate the results of
163 speed of light determinations in The Atomic Constants, Light,
and Time, and claim clear support for the decay of c hypothesis
from this data set. My inability to verify this claim when this
data set was subjected to appropriate, objective analyses is the
motivation for this article, which is intended to caution creationists
against a wholesale, uncritical acceptance of the Norman and
Setterfield hypothesis. At the present time, it appears that general
support by the creationist community of the decay of the speed of
light hypothesis is not warranted by the data upon which the
hypothesis rests."
Why do you let rumour and urban legend be the basis for your
belief? Why are you apparently unwilling to discuss your claims
in detail? If they are true, surely they should stand up to
scrutiny.
Tim
>
>OF course, MY question is whether ANYONE can present even an
>mini-milligram of undeniable scientific evidence backing up the
>erroneous theory of the evolution of man.
Undeiable? Well, idiots can deny anything. Undeniable to the rational mind,
thats easy. The fossil record. Consider you question answered.
Mark Isaak
<ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <366E9A...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> > Evolution is discredited by the evidence . . .
>>
>> You keep saying that. Could you list some of this evidence, so we
>> can see what you're talking about?
>
>overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age, studies
>on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged NOT
>in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line (ie
>- equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
>created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence.
Those are claims, not evidence. Where is the evidence which goes with
them?
Furthermore, much of your "evidence" seems rather to be an absence of
evidence (e.g., gaps). How do some gaps in the fossil record discredit
all the places where there are no gaps? How do the few errors in
radiometric dating (and do you really expect any endeavor to be completely
free of errors) discredit the thousands of dates which have been checked
and aren't in error? Why does the one hoax discredit all the work done by
tens of thousands of other people? (And are you aware that the prevalence
of hoaxes is far greater in Creationism?)
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"That which you know, you ignore because it is inconvenient. That
which you do not know, you invent." - J. Michael Straczynski
wf...@enter.netxx
>Of course not, and that's not what I said. Evolution is discredited by the
>evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a belief
>system.
>
odd that the only folks who think so are members of a peculiar
american religious cult. the world's scientists certainly dont think
so.
>>
>And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your fears
>too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
>
>>
>> --
you might try that too..since creationism is neo-paganism, you're
gonna have a rough time when you meet the big boy.
Kevin R. Henke
Ed Conrad wrote in message <366e6634...@news.sunlink.net>...
On 8 Dec 1998 18:55:12 -0500, Mike Kean <mi...@earthling.net> wrote:
[snip]
Of course, this too, is insignficant compared to the handcarved ax
handle -- petrified, of course -- that was discovered by Ed Conrad
along with those petrified human remains and has been dated at
280,163,133 years (plus/minus 17 years).
Where did this date come from and how can you justify that kind of
precision?
Kevin
wf...@enter.netxx
>There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating errors,
>overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age, studies
>on decreasing C, p
well lets see...the only folks who believe your evidence are a cult
american fundamentalist group which has an antiscientific bias because
of their biblical beliefs.
>
>I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake, so don't normally go
>into all this stuff that has been hashed out over and over in the past; I
>prefer to post new things I run across. That way, I can be called an
>uneducated idiot for NEW stuff instead of for OLD stuff.
>
yes its obvious you just ignore the evidence because it contradicts
your view of the bible. thus you invoke some 'x-files' idea about
scientists that, worldwide, we're in cahoots to destroy your religious
beliefs...
but thats as much sense as creationism is capable of.
Thomas Paine
>In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
>> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>> What evidence?
>>
>> --
>> -- Herb Huston
>> -- hus...@access.digex.net
>> -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
>>
>>
>
>the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
Ahhhh.
Religious answers to scientific questions.
You didn't provide a URL, but I think I may have been to the site before.
The FAQ's look made up by the people who want to give the answers. (i.e. ,
they already know what they want to answer, so they make up the questions to
fit.)
The answers are not scientific at all - just religious opinions.
The Questions are not scientific, since religion cannot answer real scientific
questions.
It's a propaganda site - not a real information resource.
>
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
Thomas Paine
John Wilkins
Paine) wrote:
Absolutely. I went looking for the scientific rebuttals of evolution and
all I found were quotes from the Bible, notably Romans and Genesis, quotes
from "atheists" and out of date quotes from unreferenced "evolutionists".
Each "FAQ" (at least that I saw) is about fifty words long with lots of
pictures. The URL is <www.christiananswers.net>. Not really a serious
site.
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Thomas Paine
>In article <74lsd3$rt6$1...@niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>,
>> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything.
>>
>> professional help.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >American Patriot
>> >
>> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>> >
>>
>> Cardiff
>>
>>
>
>So, in the infinite wisdom of modern 'science', anyone who isn't afraid needs
>month club!
No. Actually, it's "the more delusional you are ... the more you need help."
Honus
>
> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything.
>
> That is a common feature of psychopathy. Maybe you should seek
> professional help.
Psycopaths and "Good Christians." I'll leave it to others to make the
obvious connection. ;)
--
"Science rules." "Death to spammers."
-Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
email.
Honus
>
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >So, in the infinite wisdom of modern 'science', anyone who isn't afraid needs
> >professional help?
>
> has nothing at all to do with bravery, which is the process of proceeding in
> the face of fear.
"There ain't no courage where there ain't no fear."
Roger Hodgson
Honus
> There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating errors,
> overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age, studies
> on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged NOT
> in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line (ie
> - equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
> created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence.
> I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake, so don't normally go
> into all this stuff that has been hashed out over and over in the past; I
> prefer to post new things I run across. That way, I can be called an
> uneducated idiot for NEW stuff instead of for OLD stuff.
That's just about the most pathetic sounding 'waffle' that I've ever
heard. I could pull a better excuse out of my ass. The whole purpose of
t.o. is to hash over the evidence, old AND new. (BTW...speaking of
evidence, I see NONE presented in your post. No surprise.)
I'll help you out, and make a list of all of the things that you seem to
believe constitute evidence of a sort. Then you can go into at least a
*little* bit of depth regarding each one.
1) Gaps: I assume that you mean gaps in the fossil record. Please be
more specific as to which gaps you're discussing. Tell us why there are
gaps in those particular areas *other* than the reasons that science
cites, such as acidic forest environments being poorly suited for the
creation of fossils. Science presents reasons why there are gaps. What
is wrong with the reasoning used to explain these gaps? Finally, explain
away the literal tons of evidence on either side of said gaps. You can't
have a gap without twice as much evidence on either side. ;)
2) Radiometric dating errors: I would suggest here that you provide more
evidence that the methods produce incorrect dates...that is, evidence
other than "Such dates contradict the Holy Word of God." Science has no
problems with accepting these methods. Specifically, tell us why *you*
do.
3) Overthrust claims: Are you saying that there's no such thing? Or that
they are the result of processes other than those proposed by modern
geology? Be specific, and then tell us why you believe as you do.
4) Evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' (sic) age: This is a
new one. You've been hanging out with Ed Conrad, haven't you? (Hint:
you're off by tens and tens of millions of years.)
5) studies on decreasing C: Someone else addressed this with some info
from the ICR, but feel free to tell us why you think that the ICR writer
was wrong.
6) phoney evolutionary lines i.e equus series: Explain to us what the
problem with this series is. (I know what you're going to say. Surprise
me...please.)
7) all the hoaxes evolutionists have created over the years: A list here
would be nice. Try to have have more than, say, ONE ITEM (a questionable
one at that) on it. ;)
This is where I usually say "Put up or shut up." I predict that you'll
do neither, out of sheer inability. Again, surprise me.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
geo...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <74m3ff$5cl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> > hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> > > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
the
> > > }evidence, [...]
> > >
> > > What evidence?
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Herb Huston
> > > -- hus...@access.digex.net
> > > -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
> > the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
>
>
> But, perhaps a reference to a peer-reviewed journal would be more useful.
The Creation Research Society Quarterly is the only peer-reviewed journal I am
aware of that will publish evidence contrary to the evolutionary belief. Of
course, the evolutionists will deny that it is a peer reviewed journal.
> At least a complaint that there is a conspiracy to keep your
> evidence out of the journals would be amusing, considering the
> origin of this thread.
I do not know the origin of this thread, but I feel very safe in stating that
if it was contrary to the evolutionary belief, it was NOT in a main line peer
reviewed journal.
>
> --
> Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
--
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
geo...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> [snip]
> >
fears
> > too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
> >
>
> proverbial ostrich.
If I find a group of people who believe, and attempt to teach, that the moon
is made of green cheese, I will do my best to convince them otherwise. I
will fight their attempts to teach this to my children. I will certainly not
be afraid of their belief, neither will I try to hide from it.
>
> [snip]
> > --
> > American Patriot
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> On 9 Dec 1998 04:34:00 -0500, ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Of course not, and that's not what I said. Evolution is discredited by the
> >evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a
belief
> >system.
> >
>
> odd that the only folks who think so are members of a peculiar
> american religious cult. the world's scientists certainly dont think
> so.
A typical Darwinist lie, which has been made (and refuted) numerous times on
this group. Creationism is NOT peculiar to America, as anyone with a desire
to find the truth can plainly see.
>
> >>
> >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your fears
> >too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
> >
> >>
> >> --
>
> you might try that too..since creationism is neo-paganism, you're
> gonna have a rough time when you meet the big boy.
>
>
So everyone who believes Genesis is a neo-pagan? You paint with a rather
broad brush, don't you?
Calling the creator of the universe the "big boy" makes it rather plain which
of us may have a rough time ahead.
maff91
>Path: soap.news.pipex.net!bore.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.best.com!128.100.83.246.MISMATCH!ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>From: ttra...@my-dejanews.com
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Subject: Re: Hmmm! Why, I'll be an uncle's monkey!
>Date: 9 Dec 1998 09:53:30 -0500
>Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
>Lines: 25
>Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
>Message-ID: <74m3ff$5cl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>References: <366cfcb...@news.sunlink.net> <74k0na$dbt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <74kb9c$mnt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org
>X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Dec 09 15:03:14 1998 GMT
>X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95)
>X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x8.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 24.2.101.22
>Xref: soap.news.pipex.net talk.origins:466612
>
>In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
>> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> } Evolution is discredited by the
>> }evidence, [...]
>>
>> What evidence?
>>
>> --
>> -- Herb Huston
>> -- hus...@access.digex.net
>> -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
>>
>>
>
>Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
>the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
>
>--
>American Patriot
>
Did you read about the Hindu answers?
http://www.com.org/itv/science.html
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Creacionismo científico: un dogma religioso que combina masiva
ignorancia con increible arrogancia.
Creacionista: (1) Una persona adepta al creacionismo. (2) Una
perosona con el mínimo nivel de inteligencia que aún le permite
hacer labores simples (3) Una persona que ni la grama sabe cortar.
(4) Un mentiroso o repartidor de mentiras (5) Una pesona que cree
fácilmente que lo que le cuentan es verdad.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
Honus <hon...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH> wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating errors,
> > overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age,
studies
> > on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged
NOT
> > in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line
(ie
> > - equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
> > created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence.
>
> > I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake, so don't normally go
> > into all this stuff that has been hashed out over and over in the past; I
> > prefer to post new things I run across. That way, I can be called an
> > uneducated idiot for NEW stuff instead of for OLD stuff.
>
> That's just about the most pathetic sounding 'waffle' that I've ever
> heard. I could pull a better excuse out of my ass.
And, in true form, you pull an entire post from that place.
> The whole purpose of
> t.o. is to hash over the evidence, old AND new. (BTW...speaking of
> evidence, I see NONE presented in your post. No surprise.)
BS - the whole purpose of TO is to squelch any opinion other than Darwinist,
to refer all objections to FAQ's, and to flame any who dare to question the
status quo.
>
> I'll help you out, and make a list of all of the things that you seem to
> believe constitute evidence of a sort. Then you can go into at least a
> *little* bit of depth regarding each one.
>
> 1) Gaps: I assume that you mean gaps in the fossil record. Please be
> more specific as to which gaps you're discussing. Tell us why there are
> gaps in those particular areas *other* than the reasons that science
> cites, such as acidic forest environments being poorly suited for the
> creation of fossils. Science presents reasons why there are gaps. What
> is wrong with the reasoning used to explain these gaps? Finally, explain
> away the literal tons of evidence on either side of said gaps. You can't
> have a gap without twice as much evidence on either side. ;)
We can both fill books with this one. Lets just skip it, and agree that the
gaps exist, OK?
>
> 2) Radiometric dating errors: I would suggest here that you provide more
> evidence that the methods produce incorrect dates...that is, evidence
> other than "Such dates contradict the Holy Word of God." Science has no
> problems with accepting these methods. Specifically, tell us why *you*
> do.
Gee, there's the volcanic flow in hawaii, the living clam shell that was
dated at thousands of years old, the volcanic flow in Australia, the article
I quoted from Science News that dated a rock at 500 million and 1.1 billion
years, depending on which group you believed (and another poster here quoted
an earlier article which said it had been radiometrically dated), another
article I quoted here earlier about a similar controversy over some cave art
in Australia which gave radically different dates depending on which
radiometric dating method was used, - - In fact, errors in this dating
technique are so common that I find it hard to believe you are not aware of
them. I must assume, therefore, that this comment of yours was just a troll.
>
> 3) Overthrust claims: Are you saying that there's no such thing? Or that
> they are the result of processes other than those proposed by modern
> geology? Be specific, and then tell us why you believe as you do.
Whenever a fossil is found (according to the evolutionary line) to be 'out of
place', it is claimed to be an overthrust, or some other method of upsetting
the geologic column. It is nothing but CYA, and an attempt to preserve a
discredited belief.
>
> 4) Evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' (sic) age: This is a
> new one. You've been hanging out with Ed Conrad, haven't you? (Hint:
> you're off by tens and tens of millions of years.)
No, it's rather old, actually. Human and dino footprints in same rock in TX
and a newer find in AZ.
>
> 5) studies on decreasing C: Someone else addressed this with some info
> from the ICR, but feel free to tell us why you think that the ICR writer
> was wrong.
He was not wrong. He was only advising caution in unrestrained support of the
studies showing this effect. Good scientific principle, in my estimation.
>
> 6) phoney evolutionary lines i.e equus series: Explain to us what the
> problem with this series is. (I know what you're going to say. Surprise
> me...please.)
Let's see - how about just ONE objection. The ages of the strata in which the
finds were located do not match the supposed progression.
>
> 7) all the hoaxes evolutionists have created over the years: A list here
> would be nice. Try to have have more than, say, ONE ITEM (a questionable
> one at that) on it. ;)
1. Nebraska man.
2. Piltdown man.
3. Recapitulation, complete with fraudulant illustrations. (This one is a
real hoot - it was exposed within a few years of it's first printing, but was
such good 'evidence' for evolution that the original fake illustrations
continued to be used in biology textbooks for over one hundred years!!!)
There is three, all indesputed hoaxes.
>
> This is where I usually say "Put up or shut up." I predict that you'll
> do neither, out of sheer inability. Again, surprise me.
>
Surprise.
> --
> "Science rules." "Death to spammers."
>
> -Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
>
> Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
> email.
>
>
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
> > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your
> fears
> > > too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
> > >
> >
> > proverbial ostrich.
>
> If I find a group of people who believe, and attempt to teach, that the moon
> is made of green cheese, I will do my best to convince them otherwise.
I
> will fight their attempts to teach this to my children. I will certainly not
> be afraid of their belief, neither will I try to hide from it.
Fortunately my Irony Meter hasn't arrived yet, but I heard the sound of all
others exploding all the way across the Atlantic.
You know, I've started to sympathize with you. It must be really hard to
defend that 2+2=5, especially when some mathematicians are in the audience.
HRG.
> >
> > [snip]
> > > --
> > > American Patriot
> >
> > --
> > Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
> >
maff91
>Path: soap.news.pipex.net!bore.news.pipex.net!pipex!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed.direct.ca!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news1.best.com!128.100.83.246.MISMATCH!ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>From: ttra...@my-dejanews.com
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Subject: Re: Evidence against evolution (was Re: Hmmm! Why, I'll be an uncle's monkey!)
>Date: 9 Dec 1998 14:41:50 -0500
>Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
>Lines: 39
>Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
>Message-ID: <74mkc6$l2u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>References: <366cfcb...@news.sunlink.net> <19981208120206...@ng119.aol.com> <74k0na$dbt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <74kb9c$mnt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <366E9A...@research.bell-labs.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org
>X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Dec 09 19:51:34 1998 GMT
>X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95)
>X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x2.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 24.2.101.22
>Xref: soap.news.pipex.net talk.origins:466695
>
>In article <366E9A...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > Of course not, and that's not what I said. Evolution is discredited by the
>> > evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a
>belief
>> > system.
>>
>> You keep saying that. Could you list some of this evidence, so we
>> can see what you're talking about?
>>
>> --
>> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>>
>>
>
>There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating errors,
>overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age, studies
>on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged NOT
>in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line (ie
>- equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
>created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence. No matter how well
>documented, every one of these will be denied in your FAQ's, which I will be
>told to read (again) as punishment for daring to post the truth to the TO
>newsgroup. If you really want to know, check out the christiananswers site.
>
>I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake, so don't normally go
>into all this stuff that has been hashed out over and over in the past; I
>prefer to post new things I run across. That way, I can be called an
>uneducated idiot for NEW stuff instead of for OLD stuff.
>
>:^)
>
>--
>American Patriot
>
OK! You're an uneducated idiot for the NEW stuff, Mr Commissar!.
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
What is Darwinian Medicine?
http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm
Evolution and Origins of disease
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
Gene Therapy
http://www.natx.com/
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
http://www.pavich.com/links.htm
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
The only way you can get people to accept your fantasy is to institute
a theocratic dictatorship and to get all free enterprise nationalized.
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
*******************************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
*****************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
> In article <366E9A...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > You keep saying that. Could you list some of this evidence, so we
> > can see what you're talking about?
> There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating errors,
> overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age, studies
> on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged NOT
> in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line (ie
> - equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
> created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence. No matter how well
> documented, every one of these will be denied in your FAQ's, which I will be
> told to read (again) as punishment for daring to post the truth to the TO
> newsgroup. If you really want to know, check out the christiananswers site.
So you think all these thousands of scientists, world-wide, are really
all just lying to us, right? Why? What reason do you think they have for
living a life of lies?
> I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake, so don't normally go
> into all this stuff that has been hashed out over and over in the past;
Have you ever gone out and really looked at and mapped and identified
fossils in a rock outcrop?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
geo...@usa.net
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <74mldv$m1a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> geo...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <74m3ff$5cl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> > > hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> > > > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > > <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> the
> > > >
> > > > What evidence?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Herb Huston
> > > > -- hus...@access.digex.net
> > > > -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go
to
> > > the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
> >
> >
> > But, perhaps a reference to a peer-reviewed journal would be more useful.
>
> The Creation Research Society Quarterly is the only peer-reviewed journal I am
> aware of that will publish evidence contrary to the evolutionary belief. Of
> course, the evolutionists will deny that it is a peer reviewed journal.
>
> > At least a complaint that there is a conspiracy to keep your
> > evidence out of the journals would be amusing, considering the
> > origin of this thread.
>
> I do not know the origin of this thread, but I feel very safe in stating that
> if it was contrary to the evolutionary belief, it was NOT in a main line peer
>
Because of the conspiracy?
geo...@usa.net
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <74ml0s$lko$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> geo...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your
> fears
> > > too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
> > >
> >
> > You seem to be pretty afraid of evolution, kind of like the
> > proverbial ostrich.
>
> If I find a group of people who believe, and attempt to teach, that the moon
> is made of green cheese, I will do my best to convince them otherwise. I
> will fight their attempts to teach this to my children. I will certainly not
> be afraid of their belief, neither will I try to hide from it.
This seems to be a reasonable position, and I have no reason to
believe that you are not sincere. In this instance, you would
have the facts to support you and the green cheesers would not.
Why can't you accept that evolutionists feel the same way about
creationism being taught in school? Evolutionists sincerely
believe that the facts support their position, and that
the creationist model (to the extent there is a model) is
contradicted by the facts.
I'm sure the green cheesers would accuse you of a conspiracy to
suppress the truth about the nature of the moon. They would take
that position because, without facts to support them, they could
only question the motivations and sincerity of their opponents.
Dave Horn
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<74ol0p$at7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <366F7863...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH>,
> Honus <hon...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH> wrote:
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake,
>> > so don't normally go into all this stuff that has been
>> > hashed out over and over in the past; I prefer to post
>> > new things I run across. That way, I can be called an
>> > uneducated idiot for NEW stuff instead of for OLD stuff.
>>
>> That's just about the most pathetic sounding 'waffle' that
>> I've ever heard. I could pull a better excuse out of my ass.
>
>And, in true form, you pull an entire post from that place.
Nice attitude, "Christian."
>> The whole purpose of t.o. is to hash over the evidence,
>> old AND new. (BTW...speaking of evidence, I see NONE
>> presented in your post. No surprise.)
>
>BS - the whole purpose of TO is to squelch any opinion
>other than Darwinist, to refer all objections to FAQ's, and
>to flame any who dare to question the status quo.
In other words, "is NOT," huh?
>> I'll help you out, and make a list of all of the things that
>> you seem to believe constitute evidence of a sort. Then
>> you can go into at least a *little* bit of depth regarding each one.
>>
>> 1) Gaps: I assume that you mean gaps in the fossil record.
>> Please be more specific as to which gaps you're discussing.
[Snip]
>We can both fill books with this one.
I doubt if you could fill even a page with this one...
>Lets just skip it, and agree that the gaps exist, OK?
Gaps exist. The fossil record is imperfect. So what? Pick any
progression, describe it, and then tell us what is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong with
the explanations currently provided by science.
>> 2) Radiometric dating errors: I would suggest here that
>> you provide more evidence that the methods produce
>> incorrect dates...that is, evidence other than "Such dates
>> contradict the Holy Word of God." Science has no
>> problems with accepting these methods. Specifically, tell
>> us why *you* do.
>
>Gee, there's the volcanic flow in hawaii, the living clam shell
>that was dated at thousands of years old...
Reference? Other than the Jack Chick tract, I mean...
>...the volcanic flow in Australia...
Reference?
>...the article I quoted from Science News that dated a rock
>at 500 million and 1.1 billion years, depending on which
>group you believed (and another poster here quoted
>an earlier article which said it had been radiometrically
>dated)...
I missed this. Recite your reference.
>...another article I quoted here earlier about a similar
>controversy over some cave art in Australia which gave
>radically different dates depending on which radiometric
>dating method was used, - - In fact, errors in this dating
>technique are so common that I find it hard to believe you
>are not aware of them.
Uh, huh...most of us who actually went out and LEARNED this stuff (instead
of getting it from the travelling ICR snake-oil salesmen or from tracts)
know all about the variations in dating methods. So unless you are some
sort of expert in geology or geophysics or any other appropriate discipline
and can expain SCIENTIFICALLY where the errors are and why they are so
significant, I think it's safe to dismiss you as another crank.
>I must assume, therefore, that this comment of yours
>was just a troll.
And you're just another ignorant creationist who has no clue about those
things he criticizes.
So now that we have *that* out of the way...
>> 3) Overthrust claims: Are you saying that there's no such
>> thing? Or that they are the result of processes other than
>> those proposed by modern geology? Be specific, and
>> then tell us why you believe as you do.
>
>Whenever a fossil is found (according to the evolutionary line)
>to be 'out of place', it is claimed to be an overthrust, or some
>other method of upsetting the geologic column. It is nothing
>but CYA, and an attempt to preserve a discredited belief.
Really! Then, pray tell, what is your reasonably scientific alternative
explanation for these things?
>> 4) Evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' (sic) age:
>> This is a new one. You've been hanging out with Ed Conrad,
>> haven't you? (Hint: you're off by tens and tens of millions of
>> years.)
>
>No, it's rather old, actually. Human and dino footprints in same
>rock in TX and a newer find in AZ.
Oh, yeah...it's old, all right...and long discredited -- including by some
creationists.
>> 5) studies on decreasing C: Someone else addressed
>> this with some info from the ICR, but feel free to tell us
>> why you think that the ICR writer was wrong.
>
>He was not wrong. He was only advising caution in
>unrestrained support of the studies showing this effect.
>Good scientific principle, in my estimation.
Uh, huh...try again. You didn't answer as you were asked.
>> 6) phoney evolutionary lines i.e equus series: Explain
>> to us what the problem with this series is. (I know what
>> you're going to say. Surprise me...please.)
>
>Let's see - how about just ONE objection. The ages of
>the strata in which the finds were located do not match the
>supposed progression.
Really! Describe this alleged discrepancy and include references.
>> 7) all the hoaxes evolutionists have created over the years:
>> A list here would be nice. Try to have have more than, say,
>> ONE ITEM (a questionable one at that) on it. ;)
>
>1. Nebraska man.
A mistake is not a hoax...and this mistake was cleared up by science...not
creationists.
>2. Piltdown man.
Indeed a hoax and the perpetrators are unknown to this day -- so where is
your evidence that this was a hoax created by evolutionists?
By the way, this was also cleared up by scientists...not creationists.
>3. Recapitulation, complete with fraudulant illustrations.
>(This one is a real hoot - it was exposed within a few
>years of it's first printing, but was such good 'evidence'
>for evolution that the original fake illustrations continued
>to be used in biology textbooks for over one hundred years!!!)
Explain...and don't forget references.
>There is three, all indesputed hoaxes.
Nope. I dispute every one of them as meeting the request that you provide
hoaxes "created" by "evolutionists.
>> This is where I usually say "Put up or shut up." I
>> predict that you'll do neither, out of sheer inability.
>> Again, surprise me.
>
>Surprise.
I'm not surprised. You follow the net-creationist script almost
perfectly...right down to the sloppy quoting and editing.
Try again.
R. Tang
<ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> 2) Radiometric dating errors: I would suggest here that you provide more
>> evidence that the methods produce incorrect dates...that is, evidence
>> other than "Such dates contradict the Holy Word of God." Science has no
>> problems with accepting these methods. Specifically, tell us why *you*
>> do.
>
>Gee, there's the volcanic flow in hawaii,
Dating inclusions of older rocks.
> the living clam shell that was
>dated at thousands of years old,
The material is thousands years old, of course; that's how clams
build their shells. Not that you use clam shells for dating; it isn't what
it's designed for.
Still a liar and still shirking your homework AGAIN, hm?
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|In article <366F7863...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH>,
| Honus <hon...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH> wrote:
|> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
|>
|> > There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating
|> > errors, overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the
|> > 'Jurasic' age, studies on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines
|> The whole purpose of
|> t.o. is to hash over the evidence, old AND new. (BTW...speaking of
|> evidence, I see NONE presented in your post. No surprise.)
|
|BS - the whole purpose of TO is to squelch any opinion other than
|Darwinist, to refer all objections to FAQ's, and to flame any who dare to
|question the status quo.
In this post, there is no attempt to squelch contrary opinion,
there is no attempt to refer you to the FAQs (eventhough they exist on
some of the subjects you mentioned), and there is no attempt to flame you,
only to state my disagreement with you.
Enjoy.
..
|> 3) Overthrust claims: Are you saying that there's no such thing? Or
|> that they are the result of processes other than those proposed by
|> modern geology? Be specific, and then tell us why you believe as you
|> do.
|
|Whenever a fossil is found (according to the evolutionary line) to be
|'out of place', it is claimed to be an overthrust,
This logic is inverted from what is usually employed by geologists
to identify thrust faults. Thrust faults are a structural feature, and
they can be detected and mapped in areas without any fossils at all. They
are recognized as most faults are -- as a structural (geometrical) break
that cuts across the rock units of the area. The fault is known to
post-date the strata that may be present in the surrounding rock because
the fault cuts across that strata (i.e. the principle of cross-cutting
relationships -- a very simple geometrical principle having nothing to do
with fossils. It is like recognizing that if you find a piece of paper
with words printed on it that has been cut in half and shifted, it only
makes sense that the cut formed after the paper and the printing did).
The direction of motion on the fault plane can be determined by
looking at the displacement (i.e. actual distance) between features in the
rocks found on either side of the fault. For example, there may be a
particular set of rock types that occur on both sides of the fault in a
consistent geometrical arrangement, but their position may be shifted
greatly across the fault surface, so that they are no longer continuous
structures. Typically, these rocks are sedimentary beds, but they could
also be lava flows, or even intrusive rocks. All that is required is the
recognition that the same rock structures and contacts on both sides of
the fault were likely to be generated from something that was originally
continuous. This may seem unlikely or unreliable for a single item of
evidence, but, typically, there are hundreds of such items available, and
the matching across the fault is often very easy and obvious -- so
obvious, in fact, that even geologists of the 19th century recognized and
mapped huge thrust faults, eventhough they could not understand what
forces could have been responsible to generate them. The geometrical
evidence was just too plain to deny.
While it is possible for fossils to assist in the recognition of
originally continuous structures (i.e. structures predating the fault) it
is *not* necessary. In fact, in many situations, fossils are simply
unavailable. Yet, thrust faults are still recognized, because the
structural principles are so simple and usually so obvious. The fossils
just make it easier, they are *not* the reason thrust faults are usually
identified in the first place. Even if they were, it is routine for
*unfaulted* successions of fossils to be known in the same region, making
the whole thrust fault issue rather moot. For example, there are many
thrust faults in the Canadian parts of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta and
British Columbia that chop up the stratigraphy quite a bit, and make
mapping of the geology somewhat challenging, but, just to the east, in the
Alberta Basin, there is a pile of layered, nearly-horizontal rock units
with the *same* fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks as are found in the
mountains, but with no thrust faults present at all. In these rocks,
interpreting the succession of fossils within them is like interpreting a
layer cake, and having that baseline succession is why it can be said with
confidence that even if the identification of thrust faults in the Rocky
Mountains next door were somehow in gross error, it would not change the
fossil succession, because that is empirically observed in undisturbed
rock successions.
|or some other method of upsetting the geologic column.
The type of "upsetting" that thrust faults can accomplish is very
specific, and not nearly as flexible as you imply. Thrust faults repeat
strata, they do not arbitrarily mix it up. For example, if the
undisturbed succession is 1 2 3 4 5 6, and in an area with thrust faults
(i.e. where the faults are seen to cut across and displace strata), a
succession of fossils is seen that looks like 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6, is it such
a jump to suggest the presence of a thrust fault between the "3 2"
discontinuity, especially if the physical discontinuity between the beds
is physically seen and mapped, as is almost always the case?
|It is nothing but CYA, and an attempt to preserve a
|discredited belief.
No. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The existence of thrust
faults has *never* been solely dependent upon fossils, thrust faults are
not arbitrarily invoked to explain a particular fossil succession, and
nothing about thrust faults is relevant when there are *unfaulted*
successions of fossils known from many parts of the world. Critics of
conventional geology have attempted to dispute the existence of the basic
pattern to fossil succession seen around the world (which is something
they would need to explain if it existed, so they would rather it did not)
by implying that because of features like thrust faults, geologists can
just arbitrarily invoke explanations to order the fossils however they
want. *Poof*, no explanation is needed, because fossil succession is not
real. This is ridiculous, given that there are plenty of areas where
there is hardly any structural deformation at all (I just mentioned the
Alberta Basin), and, furthermore, the basic order to fossil life was
determined by mostly creationist paleontologists and geologists back in
the late 1700s and early 1800s, before Darwinian evolution had even been
proposed. The attempts by critics to use thrust faults to dispute
conventional geology are nonsense by themselves (because thrust faults are
very obvious structural features independent of fossils), and because the
supposed motivation for doing these nefarious deeds does not make any
historical sense at all.
The whole confusion about thrust faults in the "young Earth global
flood" creationist literature was probably started back in the 1920s by
George McReady Price, was expounded on further by Whitcomb and Morris in
the 1960s (in "The Genesis Flood") and people still do not get it --
thrust faults are real, geometrically-recognizable structures that would
exist even if there were *NO* fossils in the Earth's geology *at*all*.
When structural geologists go out in the field to map thrust faults,
folds, and other structures, they may not even have fossils in their area
to work with. Fossils do help recognize distinct units, but they are not
required.
I would be happy to talk about any issue regarding thrust faults
that you would like to discuss. One of the great difficulties in trying
to explain things about them in a written format is that they are easier
to understand if illustrations are available. I can suggest some sources
if you like.
..
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave Horn" <dh...@henge.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >3. Recapitulation, complete with fraudulant illustrations.
> >(This one is a real hoot - it was exposed within a few
> >years of it's first printing, but was such good 'evidence'
> >for evolution that the original fake illustrations continued
> >to be used in biology textbooks for over one hundred years!!!)
>
> Explain...and don't forget references.
<snip>
Anyone who is ignorant of the recapitulation scam (or claims to be) is not
worth my time to talk to.
Go waste someone elses time.
Elmer Bataitis
> In article <366f20ce....@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> > >Evolution is discredited by the
> > >evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a belief
> > >system.
> > odd that the only folks who think so are members of a peculiar
> > american religious cult. the world's scientists certainly dont think
> > so.
> A typical Darwinist lie, which has been made (and refuted) numerous times on
> this group.
I've never, ever seen this refutation. Which, currently *non-Christian*
and non -Western scientists, have been convinced by the scientific
evidence?
> Creationism is NOT peculiar to America, as anyone with a desire
> to find the truth can plainly see.
It is far more an American belief derived out of the 7th Day Adventist
sect than derived from the bible. You do realize that don't you?
> > >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your fears
> > >too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
But *you* don't acknowledge the work of God's creation now do you? You
refuse to look at the physical evidence God left behind and prefer to
believe that all scientists are simply lying. You also simply refuse to
believe 2 Cor 5:7.
Sad.
Tedd Hadley
<snip>
>BS - the whole purpose of TO is to squelch any opinion other than Darwinist,
>to refer all objections to FAQ's, and to flame any who dare to question the
>status quo.
Not squelch opinions but demonstrate with facts and evidence
that they are based on faulty information. FAQs are repositories
of information that would take a great deal of space to replicate
everytime some well-meaning but misinformed creationist relays
an old rumour he heard regarding something wrong with evolution.
It's easier to point him or her to a location where much
can be learned. As for flames, that's human nature. You find
that in every newsgroup to varying extents.
>> 1) Gaps: I assume that you mean gaps in the fossil record. Please be
>> more specific as to which gaps you're discussing. Tell us why there are
>> gaps in those particular areas *other* than the reasons that science
>> cites, such as acidic forest environments being poorly suited for the
>> creation of fossils. Science presents reasons why there are gaps. What
>> is wrong with the reasoning used to explain these gaps? Finally, explain
>> away the literal tons of evidence on either side of said gaps. You can't
>> have a gap without twice as much evidence on either side. ;)
>We can both fill books with this one. Lets just skip it, and agree that the
>gaps exist, OK?
But what about transitional series where gaps are quite small?
Evolution predicted that "whales" with legs would be found based
on similarities to certain land-dwelling creatures. Sure enough,
many have been found and you can even observe the legs getting smaller
in the series the more recent the fossil.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#ceta
What about the extensive species-to-species transitions found
for many organisms (see same FAQ)? Is that better explained by
evolution or special creation?
>> 2) Radiometric dating errors: I would suggest here that you provide more
>> evidence that the methods produce incorrect dates...that is, evidence
>> other than "Such dates contradict the Holy Word of God." Science has no
>> problems with accepting these methods. Specifically, tell us why *you*
>> do.
>Gee, there's the volcanic flow in hawaii,
Are you referring to K-Ar dating of Hawaiian lava? Isn't it
true that geologists are aware that lava forming under particular
conditions in this area would trap argon gas and thus make this
form of dating unreliable in this case? Does one case of an
understood problem invalidate all the cases where K-Ar is reliably
used and matches with other forms of dating?
>the living clam shell that was dated at thousands of years old,
Was this with Carbon-14 dating? C-14 relies on atmospheric
carbon while clam shells are formed from dissolved calcium
carbonate in water. C-14 dating is not supposed to work
in this case.
>the volcanic flow in Australia,
Specifics? Another problem with volcanic dating is inclusions
of older rock. If you try to date the time of eruption by the
lava and accidently get a piece that wasn't fully melted (reset),
you will get the date of that old rock, not the date of the
eruption. This is well understood.
>the article
>I quoted from Science News that dated a rock at 500 million and 1.1 billion
>years, depending on which group you believed (and another poster here quoted
>an earlier article which said it had been radiometrically dated),
Note carefully that the Science News did not conclude what the
date was. There is not enough information for that conclusion
yet. However, in thousands of cases, there is sufficient
information to make a pretty solid case for the age of a rock
or fossil.
>another
>article I quoted here earlier about a similar controversy over some cave art
>in Australia which gave radically different dates depending on which
>radiometric dating method was used, - - In fact, errors in this dating
>technique are so common that I find it hard to believe you are not aware of
>them. I must assume, therefore, that this comment of yours was just a troll.
The problem is that you've been reading creationists who make
a big deal out of the handful of radiometric problems that exist.
I suggest you browse the dating section of the talk.origins FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Now the FAQ could all be lies. But if there are blatant falsehoods
in it, it *must* be possible to find them, isolate them and refute
them, no?
>> 3) Overthrust claims: Are you saying that there's no such thing? Or that
>> they are the result of processes other than those proposed by modern
>> geology? Be specific, and then tell us why you believe as you do.
>Whenever a fossil is found (according to the evolutionary line) to be 'out of
>place', it is claimed to be an overthrust, or some other method of upsetting
>the geologic column. It is nothing but CYA, and an attempt to preserve a
>discredited belief.
I wish you had some specific examples because otherwise we have
no way of deciding if what you say is true or if you learned it
from some creationist who didn't understand the process.
>> 4) Evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' (sic) age: This is a
>> new one. You've been hanging out with Ed Conrad, haven't you? (Hint:
>> you're off by tens and tens of millions of years.)
>No, it's rather old, actually. Human and dino footprints in same rock in TX
>and a newer find in AZ.
Note that creationists are backing away from the claim of human
and dino footprints in Texas. I posted the Impact article for
you in another thread. What can you tell us about the newer find
in Arizona?
>> 5) studies on decreasing C: Someone else addressed this with some info
>> from the ICR, but feel free to tell us why you think that the ICR writer
>> was wrong.
>He was not wrong. He was only advising caution in unrestrained support of the
>studies showing this effect. Good scientific principle, in my estimation.
"At the present time, it appears that general support by the
creationist community of the decay of the speed of light hypothesis
is *not warranted* by the data upon which the hypothesis rests."
[emp. mine] Impact #179, Gerald E. Aardsma
What does "not warranted" mean to you?
>> 6) phoney evolutionary lines i.e equus series: Explain to us what the
>> problem with this series is. (I know what you're going to say. Surprise
>> me...please.)
>Let's see - how about just ONE objection. The ages of the strata in which the
>finds were located do not match the supposed progression.
Again, without specifics, it is imposible to evaluate your claim.
>> 7) all the hoaxes evolutionists have created over the years: A list here
>> would be nice. Try to have have more than, say, ONE ITEM (a questionable
>> one at that) on it. ;)
>1. Nebraska man.
You can read more about this in
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
Yes, it was not a fossil hominid but it is incorrect to call it a
hoax. It was a mistake.
Nor was it all widely accepted. Consider some quotes from the 1920s:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of
Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he
has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well
preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has
not yet been generally accepted." "Human Origins" (1924), George MacCurdy
"The suggestion that the Nebraska tooth (Hesperopithecus) may
possibly indicate the existence of Mankind in Early Pliocene times
is, as I have explained in the Foreword, still wholly tentative.
The claim that real men were in existence in Pliocene and Miocene
times must be regarded as a mere hypothesis unsupported as yet by
any adequate evidence." (Smith 1927)
>2. Piltdown man.
Yep, a bonfide hoax. But exposed by evolutionists, you know,
not creationists. You can read more about this at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
>3. Recapitulation, complete with fraudulant illustrations. (This one is a
>real hoot - it was exposed within a few years of it's first printing, but was
>such good 'evidence' for evolution that the original fake illustrations
>continued to be used in biology textbooks for over one hundred years!!!)
This is true. Haeckel's idea that "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny" -- that embryos revisit the adult stages of their
evolutionary ancestors during development -- was bolstered by
slightly incorrect illustrations. As one investigator puts it:
"Unfortunately, Haeckel was overzealous. When we compared his drawings
with real embryos, we found that he showed many details incorrectly.
He did not show significant differences between species, even though
his theories allowed for embryonic variation. For example, we found
variations in embryonic size, external form, and segment number
which he did not show. This does not negate Darwinian evolution.
On the contrary, the mixture of similarities and differences among
vertebrate embryos reflects evolutionary change in developmental
mechanisms inherited from a com mon ancestor."
Michael K. Richardson et al, Science, Volume 280, Number 5366
Issue of 15 May 1998 p 983.
However, as pointed out, it is still true that embryos exhibit
morphological similarities to their evolutionary ancestors during
development. For example, all early embryos of vertebrates
(fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) resemble each
other markedly. The embryos of vertebrates that do not breath
with gills (reptiles, birds, mammals) nevertheless pass through
a gillslit-like stage complete with aortic arches and a
two-chambered heart, like those of a fish. Likewise, the embryos
of humpbacks, blue whales, and other baleen whales (whales that
strain plankton from the sea by means of fine strips of whalebone)
that lack teeth as adults possess rudiments of teeth in embryo
stages.
So you tell me: what exactly was the significance of this hoax
with respect to evolution? How wrong was Haeckel?
ZeldaG
From: ttra...@my-dejanews.com
Date: 12/9/98 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
In article <74kb9c$mnt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
geo...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <74k0na$dbt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <19981208120206...@ng119.aol.com>,
> > zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
>
> [snip funny stuff]
>
> > > Z:
> > > Let us guess, this evidence disappeared along with John Smith's gold
> tablets?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Like most evolutionists, you get your facts just a little bit skewed. The
man
> > with the (supposed) gold tablets, and the 'magic' specticles (the urum and
> > thumum) was Joseph Smith, not John.
>
> I see - whenever an evolutionist makes a mistake, it discredits the
> entire field of evolution.
Of course not, and that's not what I said. Evolution is discredited by the
evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a belief
system.
>
> You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid.
I'm doing quite well, but thank you for your concern.
And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your fears
too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
Christians have nothing to fear? Is that why they act so irresponsibly?
The need to transmit ones meme to another is the ultimate question of our time.
We need to understand why people will believe bullshit and (perhaps because
they do have doubts) insist on trying to persuade others to believe it too.
Alternately, memes influence their vessels to transmit themselves because that
is how they survive and proliferate. Proliferation of living memes is as
mechanical as other life-forms.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <366E9A...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> > Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> > > You keep saying that. Could you list some of this evidence, so we
> > > can see what you're talking about?
>
studies
> > on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged
NOT
> > in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line
(ie
> > - equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
> > created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence. No matter how well
> > documented, every one of these will be denied in your FAQ's, which I will be
> > told to read (again) as punishment for daring to post the truth to the TO
> > newsgroup. If you really want to know, check out the christiananswers site.
>
> So you think all these thousands of scientists, world-wide, are really
> all just lying to us, right?
Some are - it's called job security for some of them. They do not want to be
the experts in phrenology, after all -
> Why? What reason do you think they have for
> living a life of lies?
Like I said - -
Of course, the majority are not liars. The majority are the result of an
educational system geared to indoctrination instead of education, and have
never actually heard the other side of the issue.
>
> > I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake, so don't normally go
> > into all this stuff that has been hashed out over and over in the past;
>
> Have you ever gone out and really looked at and mapped and identified
> fossils in a rock outcrop?
Looked at and identified, yes. In this area, a particular variety of tubular
coral is very common. Have also ID'd a few trilobites in my day. Of course,
all the bivalves in the limestone are very common here as well. I had a nice
lizard tail once in a coal vein - such a pleasant surprise after the usual
woody ramains found there.
Mapped? nope.
And what in the HECK does this prove? Nothing!
>
> **********************************************************
> Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
> Planetech Services -Hobbes
> 716-442-2884
> **********************************************************
>
>
Steve Henderson
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <74ml0s$lko$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> geo...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your
> > >fears too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of
> creation.
>
I don't actually have any of those sorts of fears as far as I know.
> > You seem to be pretty afraid of evolution, kind of like the
> > proverbial ostrich.
>
> If I find a group of people who believe, and attempt to teach, that the moon
> is made of green cheese, I will do my best to convince them otherwise. I
> will fight their attempts to teach this to my children. I will certainly not
> be afraid of their belief, neither will I try to hide from it.
And that, of course, is why scientists and educated laymen tend to fight
creationism. When I find someone trying to teach ancient creation myths
to my child as fact and demand that he conform to their religious beliefs
and ignore all of the evidence ever found I will fight. I am not afraid of their
beliefs, I am afraid of their stupidity and intolerance.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
OK, after you've posted the same old tired BS a dozen or so times, I will
respond.
This is old tired BS. Not a single high tech company requires their
employees at any level to accept the concept that traces man back to a one
celled animal in the distant past. You keep posting this, apparently
intending for people to believe that this particular belief is widespread,
and somehow required for these activities to be performed correctly. This is
NOT true, and all employees in these fields do NOT accept that all life as we
know it came into existance via evolution; no, not even all the researchers.
Fact!!!
Jthomford
>worth my time to talk to.
>
>Go waste someone elses time.
A simple "I can't" would have saved you a lot of typing.
"Brethren, they can lock us up, but we'll still do what the Bible tells us to
do. Either our wives are going to obey, or we're going to beat them!" - Rev.
Fred Phelps, noted homophobe.
Robert Gotschall
says...
>
> The human skeleton found in South Africa is considered a spring
> chicken when compared to the age of Conrad's specimens dated at
> 280,163,134 years (plus/minus 17 years).-
> >
>
>
Plus/minus 17 years? Your slipping Ed. I thought you guys could pin it
down to the time of day.
--
Robert Gotschall -below standard disclaimer-
Robert Gotschall
>
> I do not know the origin of this thread, but I feel very safe in stating that
> if it was contrary to the evolutionary belief, it was NOT in a main line peer
> reviewed journal.
> American Patriot
>
"straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel,
a daily newspaper, in August 1881:
a solid mass of rock in which appears a clearly-defined human
shape of giant proportions.
All the limbs, muscles and linaments are apparent. The rock is
about 16 feet in length, 18 in breadth, and about 8 in thickness.
The dimensions of the human frame are giantly, measuring 12 feet
in length and 4 feet across the chest.
Across the breast is the impression of a huge shield, about four
feet in circumference, while the right hand clutches the broken
and butt end of a large cutlass or sword."
Ed Conrad
Apparently it is intended to be evidence for Creationism.
Thomas Paine
>In article <74mldv$m1a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> geo...@usa.net wrote:
>> In article <74m3ff$5cl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
>> > hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
>> > > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> > > <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>the
>> > >
>> > > What evidence?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > -- Herb Huston
>> > > -- hus...@access.digex.net
>> > > -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
>> > the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
>>
>> That is quite a penalty.
>>
>> But, perhaps a reference to a peer-reviewed journal would be more useful.
>
>The Creation Research Society Quarterly is the only peer-reviewed journal I am
>aware of that will publish evidence contrary to the evolutionary belief. Of
>course, the evolutionists will deny that it is a peer reviewed journal.
It isn't.
I worked for Westinghouse Research. Items sent for publication would be
reviewed by others - not likely from Westinghouse - more likely from
competitors (General Electric), and neutrals from Universities.
Your ICR crap is only re-read by others from within ICR.
That's not peer review ... that's rubber stamping.
>
>> At least a complaint that there is a conspiracy to keep your
>> evidence out of the journals would be amusing, considering the
>> origin of this thread.
>
>I do not know the origin of this thread, but I feel very safe in stating that
>if it was contrary to the evolutionary belief, it was NOT in a main line peer
>reviewed journal.
>
>>
>> --
>> Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>
>>
>
>
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
>In article <74ml0s$lko$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> geo...@usa.net wrote:
>> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your
>fears
>> > too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
>> >
>>
>> proverbial ostrich.
>
>If I find a group of people who believe, and attempt to teach, that the moon
>is made of green cheese, I will do my best to convince them otherwise. I
>will fight their attempts to teach this to my children. I will certainly not
>be afraid of their belief, neither will I try to hide from it.
Hmmm some wacko extremists probably believe the moon is made of green cheese.
Science has shown us the reality of the moons construction. You're right p
don't teach your kids about the green cheese.
Now ... some wacko extremists believe the universe was created by god ... 6,000
years ago. Science has, again, shown us the reality.
Why do you now insist on teaching your children the old/false concepts instead
of reality?
Maybe you should be teaching them about green cheese - it's not much
different than the other non-realities you teach them.
>
>>
>> [snip]
>> > --
>> > American Patriot
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <366f20ce....@news3.enter.net>,
> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> > > On 9 Dec 1998 04:34:00 -0500, ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > >Evolution is discredited by the
belief
> > > >system.
>
> > > american religious cult. the world's scientists certainly dont think
> > > so.
>
> > A typical Darwinist lie, which has been made (and refuted) numerous times on
> > this group.
>
> I've never, ever seen this refutation. Which, currently *non-Christian*
> and non -Western scientists, have been convinced by the scientific
> evidence?
Now you've gone from calling them a christian cult to just calling them
Christian. Don't you know the difference?
>
> > Creationism is NOT peculiar to America, as anyone with a desire
> > to find the truth can plainly see.
>
> It is far more an American belief derived out of the 7th Day Adventist
> sect than derived from the bible. You do realize that don't you?
False. Genesis is not a 7th day adventist sriting, and it is where the record
of creation is recorded.
Good grief, man, the 7th dayers weren't even founded until 1845!!
>
> > > >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your
fears
> > > >too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
>
> But *you* don't acknowledge the work of God's creation now do you? You
> refuse to look at the physical evidence God left behind and prefer to
> believe that all scientists are simply lying. You also simply refuse to
> believe 2 Cor 5:7.
I did not say they were all lying; many are simply misled. I believe 2 Cor
5:7, but I prefer evidence to blind faith. Sorry.
>
> Sad.
>
> **********************************************************
> Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
> Planetech Services -Hobbes
> 716-442-2884
> **********************************************************
>
>
--
American Patriot
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Frank Steiger
The following tired old unsubstantiated claims was recently uploaded to
talk.origins.
Anyone tempted to give it credence should check out my web page and
associated links to other URL's:
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/fsteiger/creation.htm
Herb Huston
<ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
}In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,}> }evidence, [...]
}>
}> What evidence?
}
}Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
}the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
Are you some sort of mental defective? I asked for evidence, not
superstitious codswallop.
Herb Huston
<ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
}In article <74mldv$m1a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
} geo...@usa.net wrote:
}> In article <74m3ff$5cl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
}> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}> > In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
}> > hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
}> > > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
}> > > <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
}> > > } Evolution is discredited by
}the
}> > > }evidence, [...]
}> > >
}> > > What evidence?
}> >
}> > Lord, man, how DARE you question all the evidence? I sentence you to go to
}> > the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
}>
}>
}> But, perhaps a reference to a peer-reviewed journal would be more useful.
}
}The Creation Research Society Quarterly is the only peer-reviewed journal I am
}aware of that will publish evidence contrary to the evolutionary belief. Of
}course, the evolutionists will deny that it is a peer reviewed journal.
While it's a peer-reviewed journal, it's not a peer-reviewed SCIENCE
journal. The members of the CRS have all taken an oath not to do science.
Herb Huston
<ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
}In article <366FE1...@frontiernet.net>,
} nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
}> So you think all these thousands of scientists, world-wide, are really
}> all just lying to us, right?
}
}Some are - it's called job security for some of them.
Full bibliographic references, please. If you find yourself inadequate to
the task of supporting your assetion, will you be posting a full retraction
accompanied by a formal apology?
Ken Cox
> > "straight out of the Hazleton (Pa.) Sentinel, a daily newspaper,
> > in August 1881:
> > a solid mass of rock in which appears a clearly-defined human
> > shape of giant proportions.
> Apparently it is intended to be evidence for Creationism.
You know, we've never established whether or not Ed is a creationist
in the ICR sense, I suppose because once someone gets that far over
the sanity horizon [*] it really doesn't matter what direction they
were heading when they vanished.
[*] A term stolen from Terry Pratchett.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>The Creation Research Society Quarterly is the only peer-reviewed journal I am
>aware of that will publish evidence contrary to the evolutionary belief. Of
>course, the evolutionists will deny that it is a peer reviewed journal.
its not peer reviewed, its a religious magazine sponsored entirely by
people who are required to be fundamentalist christians.
>I do not know the origin of this thread, but I feel very safe in stating that
>if it was contrary to the evolutionary belief, it was NOT in a main line peer
>reviewed journal.
for the same reason article favorable about other superstitions are
not peer review published
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <366f20ce....@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 1998 04:34:00 -0500, ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >Of course not, and that's not what I said. Evolution is discredited by the
>> >evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a
>belief
>> >system.
>> >
>>
>> odd that the only folks who think so are members of a peculiar
>> american religious cult. the world's scientists certainly dont think
>> so.
>
>A typical Darwinist lie, which has been made (and refuted) numerous times on
>this group. Creationism is NOT peculiar to America, as anyone with a desire
>to find the truth can plainly see.
hardly. please go find another country where xtian creationists try to
get their religious beliefs accepted as science.
go find another country which has groups that think science faculties
on universities should teach magic as part of evolutionary biology.
go find another country where creationists make up a significant part
of the majority political party.
>
>>
>>
>> you might try that too..since creationism is neo-paganism, you're
>> gonna have a rough time when you meet the big boy.
>>
>>
>
>So everyone who believes Genesis is a neo-pagan? You paint with a rather
>broad brush, don't you?
>
ROFLMAO!! no WONDER creationists are in such trouble!! who said i said
THAT?? there are MANY interpretations of genesis. that yours is wrong
does not make the others wrong!
>Calling the creator of the universe the "big boy" makes it rather plain which
>of us may have a rough time ahead.
yeah i know. i call him big boy
you call him liar.
Dave Horn
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<74p3jt$op6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <09f0b242915...@msn.com>,
> "Dave Horn" <dh...@henge.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> >3. Recapitulation, complete with fraudulant illustrations.
>> >(This one is a real hoot - it was exposed within a few
>> >years of it's first printing, but was such good 'evidence'
>> >for evolution that the original fake illustrations continued
>> >to be used in biology textbooks for over one hundred years!!!)
>>
>> Explain...and don't forget references.
>
><snip>
>
>Anyone who is ignorant of the recapitulation scam (or
>claims to be) is not worth my time to talk to.
>
>Go waste someone elses time.
Uh, huh...in other words, you refuse to back up your claims.
Like I said...I'm not impressed.
Try again.
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <3677e0cf...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>,
> maf...@dial.pipex.com (maff91) wrote:
>
>>
>> Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
>> investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
>> products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
>> buy your argument.
>
>OK, after you've posted the same old tired BS a dozen or so times, I will
>respond.
>
>This is old tired BS. Not a single high tech company requires their
>employees at any level to accept the concept that traces man back to a one
>celled animal in the distant past.
fine. you might go find a company publication OR a publication from a
scientist employed by one of these companies that said evolution didnt
happen.
go ahead. we'll wait.
You keep posting this, apparently
>intending for people to believe that this particular belief is widespread,
>and somehow required for these activities to be performed correctly. This is
>NOT true, and all employees in these fields do NOT accept that all life as we
>know it came into existance via evolution; no, not even all the researchers.r
researchers from these companies publish in many journals. so go
ahead; tell us where we can find proof of your statement. certainly
you have evidence, right?
wf...@enter.netxx
>BS - the whole purpose of TO is to squelch any opinion other than Darwinist,
>to refer all objections to FAQ's, and to flame any who dare to question the
>status quo.
paranoia. how can people 'squelch' anything here when participation is
voluntary?
>> do.
>
>Gee, there's the volcanic flow in hawaii, the living clam shell that was
>dated at thousands of years old, the volcanic flow in Australia, the article
>I quoted from Science News that dated a rock at 500 million and 1.1 billion
<chuckle> obviously someone who's lived his whole life enshrouded in
fundamentalist xtianity which thinks it has all the answers, and
expects no less of science. thats because it thinks science should be
religion, too.
nice, standard, creationist strawman.
>years, depending on which group you believed (and another poster here quoted
>an earlier article which said it had been radiometrically dated), another
>article I quoted here earlier about a similar controversy over some cave art
>in Australia which gave radically different dates depending on which
>radiometric dating method was used, - - In fact, errors in this dating
>technique are so common that I find it hard to believe you are not aware of
>them. I must assume, therefore, that this comment of yours was just a troll.
>
actually they're so rare that its possible to name virtually all of
them, which creationsts typically do.
>>
>> 3) Overthrust claims: Are you saying that there's no such thing? Or that
>> they are the result of processes other than those proposed by modern
>> geology? Be specific, and then tell us why you believe as you do.
>
>Whenever a fossil is found (according to the evolutionary line) to be 'out of
>place', it is claimed to be an overthrust, or some other method of upsetting
>the geologic column. It is nothing but CYA, and an attempt to preserve a
>discredited belief.
hmmm your proof of this is? oh...the worldwide conspiracy of
scientists...sorry, i forgot. this is james bond week on TV so i gotta
think in a paranoid mindset like a creationist.
>
>No, it's rather old, actually. Human and dino footprints in same rock in TX
>and a newer find in AZ.
oh. gee thats one that missed all the science journals, and showed up
only in church. as to the rock in tx, even creationists dont push that
anymore (see 'reasons to believe' by dr. henry morris, april, 1997,
trinity broadcasting network)
>
>There is three, all indesputed hoaxes.
yep, some of them are. and all were discovered by other scientists.
there is fraud in EVERY science. but i dont think you're gonna pull
the plug on your computer because of fraud in physics...
this merely shows the anti-science bias of creationists that they
think evolutionary biology is a lie when its actually no different
than other sciences
>
Dave Horn
<74pcvg$1gm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <367014...@frontiernet.net>,
> nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > In article <366f20ce....@news3.enter.net>,
>> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> > > On 9 Dec 1998 04:34:00 -0500, ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> > > >Evolution is discredited by the evidence, not
>> > > >by the failures of those who continue to cling to
>> > > >it as a belief system.
>>
>> > > odd that the only folks who think so are members of
>> > > a peculiar american religious cult. the world's scientists
>> > > certainly dont think so.
>>
>> > A typical Darwinist lie, which has been made (and refuted)
>> > numerous times on this group.
By whom?
The fact is that creationism is largely an American religious phenomenon and
all the "is NOT" whining in the world won't change that. Sure, there are
Australian creationists and pockets of creationism elsewhere. What a shock.
There's ignorance *everywhere* and the ICR is, first and foremost, a
ministry, after all.
>> I've never, ever seen this refutation. Which, currently
>> *non-Christian* and non -Western scientists, have been
>> convinced by the scientific evidence?
>
>Now you've gone from calling them a christian cult to just
>calling them Christian. Don't you know the difference?
I know how *christians* define the difference. Go look up "cult" in a
dictionary. To refer to christians as belonging to a given cult is
reasonable usage.
>> > Creationism is NOT peculiar to America, as anyone
>> > with a desire to find the truth can plainly see.
>>
>> It is far more an American belief derived out of the 7th Day
>> Adventist sect than derived from the bible. You do realize
>> that don't you?
>
>False. Genesis is not a 7th day adventist sriting, and it is
>where the record of creation is recorded.
This isn't even a good evasion. Not everyone who reads Genesis views it as
literal. Are you that dense?
>Good grief, man, the 7th dayers weren't even founded
>until 1845!!
Another red herring.
>> > > >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything.
>> > > >You can end your fears too, by accepting Jesus Christ,
>> > > >and acknowledging his work of creation.
>>
>> But *you* don't acknowledge the work of God's creation
>> now do you? You refuse to look at the physical evidence
>> God left behind and prefer to believe that all scientists
>> are simply lying. You also simply refuse to believe 2 Cor 5:7.
>
>I did not say they were all lying; many are simply misled.
>I believe 2 Cor 5:7, but I prefer evidence to blind faith.
That's not even close to the impression I'm getting.
>Sorry.
That you are.
So...how 'bout that recapitulation evidence?
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <366FE1...@frontiernet.net>,
> site.
>>
>> So you think all these thousands of scientists, world-wide, are really
>> all just lying to us, right?
>
>Some are - it's called job security for some of them. They do not want to be
>the experts in phrenology, after all -
oh. some are...only some...why, then are all the rest lying? this is
called 'paranoia'. since many scientific revolutions have occurred, it
seems the scientist who could disprove evolution would rank right up
there with einstein and planck...
>
>> Why? What reason do you think they have for
>> living a life of lies?
>
>Like I said - -
>
>Of course, the majority are not liars. The majority are the result of an
>educational system geared to indoctrination instead of education, and have
>never actually heard the other side of the issue.
except that, somehow, science is universal. i have talked to chemists
from japan, china, russia, etc. what makes you think that ALL
evolutionary biologists...jews, moslems, xtians, etc, are lying about
your religious beliefs?
as to 'hearing the other side'...what 'other side'? now you're saying
scientists are stupid.
betcha stephen hawking can add faster than you can.
>
Bonz
>In article <366F7863...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH>,
> Honus <hon...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH> wrote:
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> > There is really no reason to rehash all the gaps, radiometric dating errors,
>> > overthrust claims, evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' age,
>studies
>> > on decreasing C, phoney evolutionary lines composed of creatures arranged
>NOT
>> > in chronological order, but according to some fanciful 'development' line
>(ie
>> > - equus series! What a hoot!), or even all the hoaxes evolutionists have
>> > created over the years to fill in for lacking evidence.
>>
>> > I really don't like to argue just for arguments sake, so don't normally go
>> > into all this stuff that has been hashed out over and over in the past; I
>> > prefer to post new things I run across. That way, I can be called an
>> > uneducated idiot for NEW stuff instead of for OLD stuff.
>>
>> That's just about the most pathetic sounding 'waffle' that I've ever
>> heard. I could pull a better excuse out of my ass.
>
>And, in true form, you pull an entire post from that place.
>
>> The whole purpose of
>> t.o. is to hash over the evidence, old AND new. (BTW...speaking of
>> evidence, I see NONE presented in your post. No surprise.)
>
>BS - the whole purpose of TO is to squelch any opinion other than Darwinist,
>to refer all objections to FAQ's, and to flame any who dare to question the
>status quo.
>
>>
>> I'll help you out, and make a list of all of the things that you seem to
>> believe constitute evidence of a sort. Then you can go into at least a
>> *little* bit of depth regarding each one.
>>
>> 1) Gaps: I assume that you mean gaps in the fossil record. Please be
>> more specific as to which gaps you're discussing. Tell us why there are
>> gaps in those particular areas *other* than the reasons that science
>> cites, such as acidic forest environments being poorly suited for the
>> creation of fossils. Science presents reasons why there are gaps. What
>> is wrong with the reasoning used to explain these gaps? Finally, explain
>> away the literal tons of evidence on either side of said gaps. You can't
>> have a gap without twice as much evidence on either side. ;)
>
>We can both fill books with this one. Lets just skip it, and agree that the
>gaps exist, OK?
>
>>
>> 2) Radiometric dating errors: I would suggest here that you provide more
>> evidence that the methods produce incorrect dates...that is, evidence
>> other than "Such dates contradict the Holy Word of God." Science has no
>> problems with accepting these methods. Specifically, tell us why *you*
>> do.
>
>Gee, there's the volcanic flow in hawaii,
*THE* lava flow in Hawaii?? The grain of sand in the Sahara, the
drop of water in the Pacific..... which lava flow are you talking
about? Is this the one where Creationists don't know what
'xenolith' means?
> the living clam shell that was
>dated at thousands of years old,
What's odd about that? C-14 dating works for things in balance
with the atmosphere. Unless it was of those hard to find tree
climbing clams, it could have dated anywhere from today to 50k
years old.
> the volcanic flow in Australia,
They had one lava flow in Australia too? :)
the article
>I quoted from Science News that dated a rock at 500 million and 1.1 billion
>years, depending on which group you believed (and another poster here quoted
>an earlier article which said it had been radiometrically dated), another
>article I quoted here earlier about a similar controversy over some cave art
>in Australia which gave radically different dates depending on which
>radiometric dating method was used,
What were they dating? You can't date 'art'. Did they date the
paint/pigments? Were they mixed with contemporary animal fats, or
with some sort of petroleum?
- - In fact, errors in this dating
>technique are so common that I find it hard to believe you are not aware of
>them. I must assume, therefore, that this comment of yours was just a troll.
>
>>
>> 3) Overthrust claims: Are you saying that there's no such thing? Or that
>> they are the result of processes other than those proposed by modern
>> geology? Be specific, and then tell us why you believe as you do.
>
>Whenever a fossil is found (according to the evolutionary line) to be 'out of
>place', it is claimed to be an overthrust, or some other method of upsetting
>the geologic column. It is nothing but CYA, and an attempt to preserve a
>discredited belief.
Not if there is evidence of an overthrust or something similar.
>
>>
>> 4) Evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' (sic) age: This is a
>> new one. You've been hanging out with Ed Conrad, haven't you? (Hint:
>> you're off by tens and tens of millions of years.)
>
>No, it's rather old, actually. Human and dino footprints in same rock in TX
>and a newer find in AZ.
Paluxy is dino tracks, period. No human tracks.
>
>>
>> 5) studies on decreasing C: Someone else addressed this with some info
>> from the ICR, but feel free to tell us why you think that the ICR writer
>> was wrong.
>
>He was not wrong. He was only advising caution in unrestrained support of the
>studies showing this effect. Good scientific principle, in my estimation.
>
>>
>> 6) phoney evolutionary lines i.e equus series: Explain to us what the
>> problem with this series is. (I know what you're going to say. Surprise
>> me...please.)
>
>Let's see - how about just ONE objection. The ages of the strata in which the
>finds were located do not match the supposed progression.
>
>>
>> 7) all the hoaxes evolutionists have created over the years: A list here
>> would be nice. Try to have have more than, say, ONE ITEM (a questionable
>> one at that) on it. ;)
>
>1. Nebraska man.
No hoax here. The discoverer found a very worn tooth that could
have been hominid, and announced that he had found a very worn
tooth chat could be hominid. He also announced that he was going
back later to check for more. When he went back, he FOUND more ..
peccary teeth. He announced that he had found a worn peccary
tooth, not a hominid tooth.
Where is the hoax? He had borderline evidence, announced it as
such, and issued a clarification when more evidence was available.
>2. Piltdown man.
Yep. We don't know who perpetrated the hoax, but science
discovered it.
>
>3. Recapitulation, complete with fraudulant illustrations. (This one is a
>real hoot - it was exposed within a few years of it's first printing, but was
>such good 'evidence' for evolution that the original fake illustrations
>continued to be used in biology textbooks for over one hundred years!!!)
Not all of embryology is recapitulation. You mean that no one
produced better drawings than Haeckel in > 100 years? Please give
the title of the text that used them 100 years later.
>There is three, all indesputed hoaxes.
>
>>
>> This is where I usually say "Put up or shut up." I predict that you'll
>> do neither, out of sheer inability. Again, surprise me.
>>
>
>Surprise.
No, no surprise. Just your asinine rantings again.
い Bonz
To reply by Email, please remove THE OBVIOUS
So you're using the findings of one field of science (Astronomy, say) to
"prove" the validity of findings in another field (say, Biology). In
other words, you're using science to support science and that is
circular reasoning. - Dan Abbott 11/98 Message ID <36451EAB...@dakota.net>
Honus
>
> In article <367014...@frontiernet.net>,
> nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > I've never, ever seen this refutation. Which, currently *non-Christian*
> > and non -Western scientists, have been convinced by the scientific
> > evidence?
>
> Now you've gone from calling them a christian cult to just calling them
> Christian. Don't you know the difference?
There is no difference whatsoever, other than that in your mind. Every
zealot thinks that every member of every religion other than his own is
a cult member. For example, you would say that Mormons are cult members,
but fellow Christians are not. Correct?
How about Catholics? Are they cult members? (I love this "True
Christian" stuff.)
--
"Science rules." "Death to spammers."
-Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
email.
Frank Steiger
in TX
> >and a newer find in AZ.
>
dropped Paluxy! "Doctor" Carl Baugh apparently still manages to convince a
few
gullible persons like yourself that those formless depressions are actually
human
footprints. BTW, I saw the film "Footprints in Stone," and the ridiculous
hopping by a creationist from depression to depression. About the only
thing that even resembled a human print had a big fat claw sticking out
behind it. Could it be a dinosaur toe going the other way? Nah! For more
information, click on my web sites:
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/fsteiger/others.htm#paluxy footprints and
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/fsteiger/nbcprog.htm#paluxy
Ken Cox
> So you think all these thousands of scientists, world-wide, are really
> living a life of lies?
I sometimes wonder if it isn't a kind of projection -- not
necessarily in ttrainor's case, but among some segment of the
creationist movement. That is, since many of them apparently
have no problem with telling a lie that supports their cause
(see the talk.origins web site for examples), they assume no
one else will. And because they work in a field where their
co-workers normally don't point out the lies, they assume that
science works the same way.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
Tedd Hadley <had...@du.ics.uci.edu> wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> <snip>
> >BS - the whole purpose of TO is to squelch any opinion other than Darwinist,
> >to refer all objections to FAQ's, and to flame any who dare to question the
> >status quo.
>
> that they are based on faulty information. FAQs are repositories
> of information that would take a great deal of space to replicate
> everytime some well-meaning but misinformed creationist relays
> an old rumour he heard regarding something wrong with evolution.
> It's easier to point him or her to a location where much
> can be learned. As for flames, that's human nature. You find
> that in every newsgroup to varying extents.
Well meaning, honorable men like yourself make this a true statement. Many
are not so, and use the FAQ's to hide behind when they cannot refute a point.
>
> >> 1) Gaps: I assume that you mean gaps in the fossil record. Please be
> >> more specific as to which gaps you're discussing. Tell us why there are
> >> gaps in those particular areas *other* than the reasons that science
> >> cites, such as acidic forest environments being poorly suited for the
> >> creation of fossils. Science presents reasons why there are gaps. What
> >> is wrong with the reasoning used to explain these gaps? Finally, explain
> >> away the literal tons of evidence on either side of said gaps. You can't
> >> have a gap without twice as much evidence on either side. ;)
>
> >We can both fill books with this one. Lets just skip it, and agree that the
> >gaps exist, OK?
>
> But what about transitional series where gaps are quite small?
> Evolution predicted that "whales" with legs would be found based
> on similarities to certain land-dwelling creatures. Sure enough,
> many have been found and you can even observe the legs getting smaller
> in the series the more recent the fossil.
have these ages actually been determined by means OTHER than the 'needed' age
for the line to fit the evolutionary prediction? By what method?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#ceta
>
> What about the extensive species-to-species transitions found
> for many organisms (see same FAQ)? Is that better explained by
> evolution or special creation?
Just read the whole section on the 'horse series'. Not one single
explaination of how the different stages were dated; just gives dates.
>
> >> 2) Radiometric dating errors: I would suggest here that you provide more
> >> evidence that the methods produce incorrect dates...that is, evidence
> >> other than "Such dates contradict the Holy Word of God." Science has no
> >> problems with accepting these methods. Specifically, tell us why *you*
> >> do.
>
> >Gee, there's the volcanic flow in hawaii,
>
> Are you referring to K-Ar dating of Hawaiian lava? Isn't it
> true that geologists are aware that lava forming under particular
> conditions in this area would trap argon gas and thus make this
> form of dating unreliable in this case? Does one case of an
> understood problem invalidate all the cases where K-Ar is reliably
> used and matches with other forms of dating?
If this is a known problem in dating lava flows using this technique, what is
the purpose of continuing to attempt to date them using this method?
>
> >the living clam shell that was dated at thousands of years old,
>
> Was this with Carbon-14 dating? C-14 relies on atmospheric
> carbon while clam shells are formed from dissolved calcium
> carbonate in water. C-14 dating is not supposed to work
> in this case.
Yes, it was C-14. Again, if it is such common knowledge that it would not
work on a shell, why was it the method chosen to date the shell?
>
> >the volcanic flow in Australia,
>
> Specifics? Another problem with volcanic dating is inclusions
> of older rock. If you try to date the time of eruption by the
> lava and accidently get a piece that wasn't fully melted (reset),
> you will get the date of that old rock, not the date of the
> eruption. This is well understood.
I am sorry, I cannot give you a reference on this one. I read the story
several years ago, and it stuck with me because this particular lava flow
created a rather rich diamond field. The flow was dated to several million
years. The problem was, the native population had a legend about the diamond
field; a 'fire serpent' had ascended from the bowels of the earth, and vomited
the diamonds out on the land. The obvious connection to a remembered volcanic
eruption is too much to be ignored, IMHO.
>
> >the article
> >I quoted from Science News that dated a rock at 500 million and 1.1 billion
> >years, depending on which group you believed (and another poster here quoted
> >an earlier article which said it had been radiometrically dated),
>
> Note carefully that the Science News did not conclude what the
> date was. There is not enough information for that conclusion
> yet. However, in thousands of cases, there is sufficient
> information to make a pretty solid case for the age of a rock
> or fossil.
I would disagree a bit here. In thousands of cases, there is not sufficient
conflict of opinion to bring the uncertainties to light. The conflicting
opinions in this case were due to different interpretations of the same data.
>
> >another
> >article I quoted here earlier about a similar controversy over some cave art
> >in Australia which gave radically different dates depending on which
> >radiometric dating method was used, - - In fact, errors in this dating
> >technique are so common that I find it hard to believe you are not aware of
> >them. I must assume, therefore, that this comment of yours was just a troll.
>
> The problem is that you've been reading creationists who make
> a big deal out of the handful of radiometric problems that exist.
> I suggest you browse the dating section of the talk.origins FAQ:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Science News was the source of the last two examples. You consider it to be a
Creationist publication? On what basis?
It is possible the lava field in Australia story is from a creationist
publication, as I receive several from that continent, but I honestly do not
remember for sure.
>
> Now the FAQ could all be lies. But if there are blatant falsehoods
> in it, it *must* be possible to find them, isolate them and refute
> them, no?
See my objection to the horse series, above. They list dates, with no method
of arriving at them. How can this be refuted, without resorting to the "is
so!" "is not!" type of childishness? Most evolutionists scream at the
creationists for accepting the Genesis account, ridiculing them for believing
what we see as the word of God, while printing assertions in their own FAQ's
without giving any more evidence for their dating than Genesis does.
>
> >> 3) Overthrust claims: Are you saying that there's no such thing? Or that
> >> they are the result of processes other than those proposed by modern
> >> geology? Be specific, and then tell us why you believe as you do.
I do not claim that such a thing does not exist, but do not believe that it is
as common as is claimed.
>
> >Whenever a fossil is found (according to the evolutionary line) to be 'out of
> >place', it is claimed to be an overthrust, or some other method of upsetting
> >the geologic column. It is nothing but CYA, and an attempt to preserve a
> >discredited belief.
>
> I wish you had some specific examples because otherwise we have
> no way of deciding if what you say is true or if you learned it
> from some creationist who didn't understand the process.
See, again, the horse series above. How were the dates arrived at? Unstated.
>
> >> 4) Evidence of human habitation in the 'Jurasic' (sic) age: This is a
> >> new one. You've been hanging out with Ed Conrad, haven't you? (Hint:
> >> you're off by tens and tens of millions of years.)
>
> >No, it's rather old, actually. Human and dino footprints in same rock in TX
> >and a newer find in AZ.
>
> Note that creationists are backing away from the claim of human
> and dino footprints in Texas. I posted the Impact article for
> you in another thread. What can you tell us about the newer find
> in Arizona?
I agree that it is wise, prudent, and good scientific method to continue a
thorough investigation of this before staking your reputation on it, and that
is all the ICR is doing.
The newer find in Arizona is outside of Tuba City, and was first researched
by P. Rosnau, J. Auldaney, G. Howe and W. Waisgerber in 1989. Further field
trips were made to the site in 1990 and 1995, and a paper covering the
research was written in 1995 by Jeremy Auldaney, Paul O. Rosnau, Edwin Black,
and Norman Davis. This paper was published in two parts in the Creation
Research Society Quarterly, volume 34, Numbers 2 and 3.
>
> >> 5) studies on decreasing C: Someone else addressed this with some info
> >> from the ICR, but feel free to tell us why you think that the ICR writer
> >> was wrong.
>
> >He was not wrong. He was only advising caution in unrestrained support of
the
> >studies showing this effect. Good scientific principle, in my estimation.
>
> "At the present time, it appears that general support by the
> creationist community of the decay of the speed of light hypothesis
> is *not warranted* by the data upon which the hypothesis rests."
> [emp. mine] Impact #179, Gerald E. Aardsma
>
> What does "not warranted" mean to you?
It means there is still insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the
theory. In light of this, Creationists will not state it is a proven fact.
(Ahem)
>
> >> 6) phoney evolutionary lines i.e equus series: Explain to us what the
> >> problem with this series is. (I know what you're going to say. Surprise
> >> me...please.)
>
> >Let's see - how about just ONE objection. The ages of the strata in which
the
> >finds were located do not match the supposed progression.
>
> Again, without specifics, it is imposible to evaluate your claim.
Yup. No specifics given in the claims of an evolutionary progression make it
impossible to evaluate the claim. In light of this, we are into a "is so - is
not" situation again.
>
> >> 7) all the hoaxes evolutionists have created over the years: A list here
> >> would be nice. Try to have have more than, say, ONE ITEM (a questionable
> >> one at that) on it. ;)
>
> >1. Nebraska man.
>
> You can read more about this in
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
>
> Yes, it was not a fossil hominid but it is incorrect to call it a
> hoax. It was a mistake.
And extinct pig tooth is mistaken as human. Some mistake. I am an engineer;
this compares to me designing a thermonuclear device instead of a baby
carriage, and calling it a mistake.
>
> Nor was it all widely accepted. Consider some quotes from the 1920s:
>
> "In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of
> Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he
> has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well
> preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has
> not yet been generally accepted." "Human Origins" (1924), George MacCurdy
>
> "The suggestion that the Nebraska tooth (Hesperopithecus) may
> possibly indicate the existence of Mankind in Early Pliocene times
> is, as I have explained in the Foreword, still wholly tentative.
> The claim that real men were in existence in Pliocene and Miocene
> times must be regarded as a mere hypothesis unsupported as yet by
> any adequate evidence." (Smith 1927)
>
> >2. Piltdown man.
>
> Yep, a bonfide hoax. But exposed by evolutionists, you know,
> not creationists. You can read more about this at
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
Do you mean that evolutionists finally admited it was a fraud? And how many
years did it take for them to admit it?
>
> >3. Recapitulation, complete with fraudulant illustrations. (This one is a
> >real hoot - it was exposed within a few years of it's first printing, but was
> >such good 'evidence' for evolution that the original fake illustrations
> >continued to be used in biology textbooks for over one hundred years!!!)
>
> This is true. Haeckel's idea that "ontogeny recapitulates
> phylogeny" -- that embryos revisit the adult stages of their
> evolutionary ancestors during development -- was bolstered by
> slightly incorrect illustrations. As one investigator puts it:
>
> "Unfortunately, Haeckel was overzealous. When we compared his drawings
> with real embryos, we found that he showed many details incorrectly.
> He did not show significant differences between species, even though
> his theories allowed for embryonic variation. For example, we found
> variations in embryonic size, external form, and segment number
> which he did not show. This does not negate Darwinian evolution.
> On the contrary, the mixture of similarities and differences among
> vertebrate embryos reflects evolutionary change in developmental
> mechanisms inherited from a com mon ancestor."
> Michael K. Richardson et al, Science, Volume 280, Number 5366
> Issue of 15 May 1998 p 983.
>
> However, as pointed out, it is still true that embryos exhibit
> morphological similarities to their evolutionary ancestors during
> development. For example, all early embryos of vertebrates
> (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) resemble each
> other markedly. The embryos of vertebrates that do not breath
> with gills (reptiles, birds, mammals) nevertheless pass through
> a gillslit-like stage complete with aortic arches and a
> two-chambered heart, like those of a fish. Likewise, the embryos
> of humpbacks, blue whales, and other baleen whales (whales that
> strain plankton from the sea by means of fine strips of whalebone)
> that lack teeth as adults possess rudiments of teeth in embryo
> stages.
>
> So you tell me: what exactly was the significance of this hoax
> with respect to evolution? How wrong was Haeckel?
He was completely wrong, and he knew it. It's significance is only that in
the light of a lack of evidence, evolutionists will manufacture it. When
caught, they will lie about it. When exposed as fraud, they will continue to
use the discredited 'evidence' to indoctrinate children with for almost ONE
HUNDRED YEARS after such proof of it's error.
You, sir, seem a reasonable person. When I say "evolutionist" here, I am
talking about the group, and not you personally.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Hmmm! Why, I'll be an uncle's monkey!
> From: ttra...@my-dejanews.com
> Date: 12/9/98 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
> Message-id: <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
> In article <74kb9c$mnt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> geo...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <74k0na$dbt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > In article <19981208120206...@ng119.aol.com>,
> > > zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
> >
> > [snip funny stuff]
> >
> > > > Z:
> > > > Let us guess, this evidence disappeared along with John Smith's gold
> > tablets?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Like most evolutionists, you get your facts just a little bit skewed. The
> man
> > > with the (supposed) gold tablets, and the 'magic' specticles (the urum and
> > > thumum) was Joseph Smith, not John.
> >
> > I see - whenever an evolutionist makes a mistake, it discredits the
> > entire field of evolution.
>
> Of course not, and that's not what I said. Evolution is discredited by the
> evidence, not by the failures of those who continue to cling to it as a belief
> system.
>
> >
>
> I'm doing quite well, but thank you for your concern.
>
> And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your fears
> too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
>
Yup. Wild, unrestrained sex, drug abuse, weekend marriages, throw-away kids,
lying, cheating, stealing, and voting for Clinton. We are a crazy bunch.
>
> The need to transmit ones meme to another is the ultimate question of our
time.
> We need to understand why people will believe bullshit and (perhaps because
> they do have doubts) insist on trying to persuade others to believe it too.
> Alternately, memes influence their vessels to transmit themselves because that
> is how they survive and proliferate. Proliferation of living memes is as
> mechanical as other life-forms.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
lo...@commonsense.com (Thomas Paine) wrote:
> In article <74ob89$36o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >In article <74ml0s$lko$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > geo...@usa.net wrote:
> >> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >fears
> >> > too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
> >> >
> >>
> >> proverbial ostrich.
> >
> >If I find a group of people who believe, and attempt to teach, that the moon
> >is made of green cheese, I will do my best to convince them otherwise. I
> >will fight their attempts to teach this to my children. I will certainly not
> >be afraid of their belief, neither will I try to hide from it.
>
> Hmmm some wacko extremists probably believe the moon is made of green cheese.
> Science has shown us the reality of the moons construction. You're right p
> don't teach your kids about the green cheese.
Yes, we've been there, we've examined it, we've brought back samples and
studied them.
>
> Now ... some wacko extremists believe the universe was created by god ...
6,000
> years ago. Science has, again, shown us the reality.
They were not there, they have not examined it, they have no samples to study.
Big difference. (And - by the way - did I say it was 6,000 years? Let's just
say "recent", and let it go at that.)
> Why do you now insist on teaching your children the old/false concepts
instead
> of reality?
Because the "reality" you think you know changes constantly, and is false.
Maybe I've just been around long enough to see theories come and go, but I do
not believe things just because someone claims to have "proven" it.
>
> Maybe you should be teaching them about green cheese - it's not much
> different than the other non-realities you teach them.
See above. Now, before space flight, this odd group could say "Look at the
moon - see all those holes? Cheese! Look at this milk curd that I leave out
only in the moonlight. Cheese! See? I proved it! Prove me wrong!" And,
lacking the means to get there, I would not be able to prove them wrong. This
would not mean, however, that they were right.
>
> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >> > --
> >> > American Patriot
> >>
> >> --
> >> Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
> >>
> >> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
> tyranny in religion is the Worst"
>
> Thomas Paine
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
lo...@commonsense.com (Thomas Paine) wrote:
> In article <74oasn$2rv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >In article <74mldv$m1a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > geo...@usa.net wrote:
> >> In article <74m3ff$5cl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> > In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> >> > hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> >> > > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> > > <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
by
> >the
> >> > >
> >> > > What evidence?
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > -- Herb Huston
> >> > > -- hus...@access.digex.net
> >> > > -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
to
> >> > the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
> >>
> >> That is quite a penalty.
> >>
> >> But, perhaps a reference to a peer-reviewed journal would be more useful.
> >
am
> >aware of that will publish evidence contrary to the evolutionary belief. Of
> >course, the evolutionists will deny that it is a peer reviewed journal.
>
>
> I worked for Westinghouse Research. Items sent for publication would be
> reviewed by others - not likely from Westinghouse - more likely from
> competitors (General Electric), and neutrals from Universities.
>
> Your ICR crap is only re-read by others from within ICR.
> That's not peer review ... that's rubber stamping.
Ahem! Would you care to re-read my post and your response, and try it again?
What does your diatribe against ICR have to do with the Creation Research
Society Quarterly?
It is obvious you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
>
> >
> >> At least a complaint that there is a conspiracy to keep your
> >> evidence out of the journals would be amusing, considering the
> >> origin of this thread.
> >
> >I do not know the origin of this thread, but I feel very safe in stating that
> >if it was contrary to the evolutionary belief, it was NOT in a main line peer
> >reviewed journal.
> >
> >>
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> In article <74oasn$2rv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> }In article <74mldv$m1a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> } geo...@usa.net wrote:
> }> In article <74m3ff$5cl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> }> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> }> > In article <74loi9$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> }> > hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> }> > > In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> }> > > <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> }> > > } Evolution is discredited
by
> }the
> }> > > }evidence, [...]
> }> > >
> }> > > What evidence?
> }> >
to
> }> > the Christiananswers site and read all the FAQ's there.
> }>
> }> That is quite a penalty.
> }>
> }> But, perhaps a reference to a peer-reviewed journal would be more useful.
> }
> }The Creation Research Society Quarterly is the only peer-reviewed journal I
am
> }aware of that will publish evidence contrary to the evolutionary belief. Of
> }course, the evolutionists will deny that it is a peer reviewed journal.
>
> journal. The members of the CRS have all taken an oath not to do science.
All the members of CRS have a Masters or better in one of the science fields.
Odd kind of requirement for one who takes "an oath not to do science."
>
> --
> -- Herb Huston
> -- hus...@access.digex.net
> -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
>
>
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
"Frank Steiger" <fste...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> The following tired old unsubstantiated claims was recently uploaded to
> talk.origins.
> Anyone tempted to give it credence should check out my web page and
> associated links to other URL's:
> http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/fsteiger/creation.htm
Translation: In case any of you missed all the same old tired refutations of
the truth, I've re-printed them on yet ANOTHER secular humanist web site.
Nothing new, but it's MINE!
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you can at least baffle them with
bull-shit"
- - - - - - Some Darwinist.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> In article <74p8sp$tj7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> }In article <366FE1...@frontiernet.net>,
> } nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> }> So you think all these thousands of scientists, world-wide, are really
> }> all just lying to us, right?
> }
>
Do you expect someones bibliographic reference to state they are lying to
protect their job?
Perhaps I just don't understand your qauestion, or perhaps you have not
understood my statement.
I said that many scientists, in order to protect their jobs, will lie about
their lack of belief in evolution (Speaking of the BIG evolution, single
celled organisms to human type, not the adaptation often talked about when
the P word (proof) comes up.
Are you asking me to expose these people on this board?
You, sir, are a fool.
> If you find yourself inadequate to
> the task of supporting your assetion, will you be posting a full retraction
> accompanied by a formal apology?
I spoke the truth, and you know it.
>
> --
> -- Herb Huston
> -- hus...@access.digex.net
> -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
>
>
Martin Smith
<ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <74lsd3$rt6$1...@niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>,
> mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Martin Smith) wrote:
>> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything.
>> That is a common feature of psychopathy. Maybe you should seek
>> professional help.
>So, in the infinite wisdom of modern 'science', anyone who isn't afraid needs
>professional help?
Fear of appropriate stimuli is an important and normal behaviour which
promotes specific physiological responses - crudely, the 'fight or flight'
reaction. The absence of this reaction in the wild would ensure that one
ended up very quickly on a predator's lunch menu, but maybe you, who is
without fear, would prefer to argue with rather than run away from a hungry
lion.
So yes, *maybe* anyone who "isn't afraid" should seek help. Many people
who are labelled 'psychopaths' do not show (for example) an appropriate
adrenaline response to various stimuli. They also display other traits,
perhaps an unhealthy fascination with guns, or an intolerance of specific
groups of people.
Perhaps your claim to fearlessness is just 'internet bluster'. Perhaps you
are indeed at least afraid of eternal damnation if you were not to believe
in your god. Whatever, I would still suggest that the absence of fear is
not a healthy trait.
<snip>
Martin Smith
Cardiff
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
am
> >aware of that will publish evidence contrary to the evolutionary belief. Of
> >course, the evolutionists will deny that it is a peer reviewed journal.
>
> people who are required to be fundamentalist christians.
No one who has EVER read the papers published in CRS quarterly could honestly
make this statement. Religion is obvious in this magazine only by it's
absence when one is looking for it.
>
> >I do not know the origin of this thread, but I feel very safe in stating that
> >if it was contrary to the evolutionary belief, it was NOT in a main line peer
> >reviewed journal.
>
> for the same reason article favorable about other superstitions are
> not peer review published
>
Thank you, sir - you have made my point for me. If an article is favorable to
any 'superstition', (meaning it does not agree with the pre-determined
consensus), it is rejected - regardless of it's scientific merit. That is why
CRS was formed in the first place (by degreed people, by the way, which is
still a requirement today).
An honest Evolutionist - How rare! (Is that TWO in this group now, or are
there three?)
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
Dave Horn <dh...@henge.com> wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <74pcvg$1gm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
> >> > In article <366f20ce....@news3.enter.net>,
> >> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> >>
> >> > > >Evolution is discredited by the evidence, not
> >> > > >by the failures of those who continue to cling to
> >> > > >it as a belief system.
> >>
> >> > > a peculiar american religious cult. the world's scientists
> >> > > certainly dont think so.
> >>
> >> > A typical Darwinist lie, which has been made (and refuted)
> >> > numerous times on this group.
>
> By whom?
By me. I have posted lists of groups that are NOT a cult, and also are NOT
american.
>
> The fact is that creationism is largely an American religious phenomenon and
> all the "is NOT" whining in the world won't change that. Sure, there are
> Australian creationists and pockets of creationism elsewhere. What a shock.
> There's ignorance *everywhere* and the ICR is, first and foremost, a
> ministry, after all.
Your statement is NOT the one I refuted. You admit that they are NOT members
of an 'american religous cult'.
>
> >> I've never, ever seen this refutation. Which, currently
> >> *non-Christian* and non -Western scientists, have been
> >> convinced by the scientific evidence?
> >
> >Now you've gone from calling them a christian cult to just
> >calling them Christian. Don't you know the difference?
>
> I know how *christians* define the difference. Go look up "cult" in a
> dictionary. To refer to christians as belonging to a given cult is
> reasonable usage.
>
> >> > Creationism is NOT peculiar to America, as anyone
> >> > with a desire to find the truth can plainly see.
> >>
> >> It is far more an American belief derived out of the 7th Day
> >> Adventist sect than derived from the bible. You do realize
> >> that don't you?
> >
> >False. Genesis is not a 7th day adventist sriting, and it is
> >where the record of creation is recorded.
>
> This isn't even a good evasion. Not everyone who reads Genesis views it as
> literal. Are you that dense?
You think the 7th day adventists were the first, or even the major group, that
DOES view it as literal? (That is, apparently, what you have claimed above!)
Are you that uneducated?
>
> >Good grief, man, the 7th dayers weren't even founded
> >until 1845!!
>
> Another red herring.
Look, you said that literal belief in Creation started largely as a 7th day
adventist teaching (see above). When I inform you that they were not even in
existance until 1845, I am contradicting WHAT YOU CLAIMED. How is that a red
herring?
>
> >> > > >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything.
> >> > > >You can end your fears too, by accepting Jesus Christ,
> >> > > >and acknowledging his work of creation.
> >>
> >> But *you* don't acknowledge the work of God's creation
> >> now do you? You refuse to look at the physical evidence
> >> God left behind and prefer to believe that all scientists
> >> are simply lying. You also simply refuse to believe 2 Cor 5:7.
> >
> >I did not say they were all lying; many are simply misled.
> >I believe 2 Cor 5:7, but I prefer evidence to blind faith.
>
> That's not even close to the impression I'm getting.
Then you aren't paying attention. You keep making wild assertions (like the
ridiculous 7th day adventists being the source of Creation belief!!), and I
keep giving evidence that you are wrong.
>
> >Sorry.
>
> That you are.
Changed my mind. I'm not one bit sorry for calling you on all your wild
claims.
>
> So...how 'bout that recapitulation evidence?
>
>
Are you asking for evidence against recapitulation? Go to your own FAQ - they
go to great pains to explain how NO ONE believes the Biogenetic Law any more.
Alright - you are the only creationist in the world who doesn't know about
the Haeckel hoax. He wrote a book, and used falsified illustrations in it,
showing how the developing fetus went through each stage of evolution,
complete with supposed 'gills' at the fish stage. Immediately after
publication, the illustrations were exposed as a fraud. Those same
illustrations were still being used OVER 100 years later in biology text
books.
What part of that don't you believe, and what part do I now have to prove?
And don't just say "all of it" - surely your education has taught you
SOMETHING.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave Horn" <dh...@henge.com> wrote:
> Let's try this again:
>
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <74p3jt$op6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> > "Dave Horn" <dh...@henge.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >3. Recapitulation, complete with fraudulant illustrations.
> >> >(This one is a real hoot - it was exposed within a few
> >> >years of it's first printing, but was such good 'evidence'
> >> >for evolution that the original fake illustrations continued
> >> >to be used in biology textbooks for over one hundred years!!!)
> >>
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Anyone who is ignorant of the recapitulation scam (or
> >claims to be) is not worth my time to talk to.
> >
> >Go waste someone elses time.
>
> Uh, huh...in other words, you refuse to back up your claims.
>
> Like I said...I'm not impressed.
>
> Try again.
>
Like I said above - go read your own FAQ's on the Biogenetic law. Anything
you still have trouble with in my post, come back and ask.
Martin Smith
<ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>All the members of CRS have a Masters or better in one of the science
>fields.
Big deal. It's the quality of the work (if any - these things can be
bought from some institutions) that went into the degree and subsequently
that matters, not the letters after the name.
>Odd kind of requirement for one who takes "an oath not to do science."
from http://www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.html
<inserted text>..................................................
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired
throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in
the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account
of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct
creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis.
Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have
been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
<more of the same>
..................................................................
This is an oath not to do science. What science is left to do when all
the answers are apparently in a single book? How many research
institutions insist that their members submit their conclusions before
doing any research?
Martin Smith
Cardiff
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
> > nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
>
> > > I've never, ever seen this refutation. Which, currently *non-Christian*
> > > and non -Western scientists, have been convinced by the scientific
> > > evidence?
> >
> > Now you've gone from calling them a christian cult to just calling them
> > Christian. Don't you know the difference?
>
> zealot thinks that every member of every religion other than his own is
> a cult member. For example, you would say that Mormons are cult members,
> but fellow Christians are not. Correct?
> How about Catholics? Are they cult members? (I love this "True
> Christian" stuff.)
Your definition is completely wrong. I may believe that Islamics are WRONG,
but that does not make them members of a cult. a Jew follows God, but not in
the form of Jesus Christ. They are not Christian, neither are they a cult,
neither are they wrong.
A Christian follows Jesus Christ, who is God. A cult follows a human being.
If the mormon in question is following Joseph Smith, or the current prophet,
he is a cultist. If he is following God, as Jesus Christ, he is a Christian.
That's not really too difficult, is it?
>
> --
> "Science rules." "Death to spammers."
>
> -Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
>
> Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
> email.
>
>
Kenneth M. Damrau
[snip]
:
: And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything. You can end your fears
: too, by accepting Jesus Christ, and acknowledging his work of creation.
:
[snip]
About the only reason I hear for believing religions, is that it will
end my fears; it will make me happy. My understanding of how the
universe, including biology, works does not make me happy. I beleive
it because of the evidence. How it makes me feal has no baring on what
I believe. Some people would rather believe a lie and ignore the
evidence and be happy, rather that than believe the evidence and be
unhapy.
: --
: American Patriot
:
: -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
:
--
Kenneth M. Damrau
Graduate Teaching Asst. | Let the buyer be where?
P. O. Box 875 | Internet: kda...@omega.uta.edu
Red Oak, Texas 75154 | Phone: Unlisted
I. M. Lurking chair in E.E. (Everything Evolutionary)
University of Ediacara
Ken Cox
> hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> > The members of the CRS have all taken an oath not to do science.
> All the members of CRS have a Masters or better in one of the science fields.
Yet true, nonetheless. You can read the statement of belief to
which they all must subscribe on their own website, at
http://www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.html
You will note that it requires them to say ahead of time that the
Earth was created in a week exactly as described in Genesis and
that the Noachian Flood also occurred. This means that if they
find evidence that either did not happen, they have to ignore
the evidence (i.e., "not do science"), unless they choose to
break the oath. And they *will* find evidence against a recent
creation and a world-wide flood, just as millions of people have
over the past five hundred years or more.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Martin Smith) wrote:
> In article <74r16d$cq9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >fields.
>
> bought from some institutions) that went into the degree and subsequently
> that matters, not the letters after the name.
>
>
>
> <inserted text>..................................................
>
> All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
>
> 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired
> throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in
> the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account
> of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
>
> 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct
> creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis.
> Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have
> been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
>
You have three mistakes in these two points. Let's see if you even have
ACCESS to the CRS Quarterly, which will allow you to correct them.
I'm betting that this is taken verbatum from some evolutionist site, complete
with errors, and since none of you ever check sources, you don't even know it.
> <more of the same>
> ..................................................................
>
> This is an oath not to do science.
No, this is an oath to "re-evaluate science from this (Biblical record)
viewpoint" -
And why not? All of you guys are evaluating it from the viewpoint that
creation did NOT happen.
> What science is left to do when all
> the answers are apparently in a single book?
Only origins are in this single book. Are you saying that with origins
established, there is no more 'science left to do'??
> How many research
> institutions insist that their members submit their conclusions before
> doing any research?
I thought CRS was a society, not an institution. As a society, they are
perfectly free to assure that members are compatable Christians, yes.
>
> Martin Smith
> Cardiff
>
>
Please - do take any of this discussion to say that publication in CRS is
limited to members - it most certainly is NOT.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Martin Smith) wrote:
> In article <74m66u$7vc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Martin Smith) wrote:
> >> In article <74lgkk$lus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >And - by the way - I am no longer afraid of anything.
>
> >> professional help.
>
> >So, in the infinite wisdom of modern 'science', anyone who isn't afraid needs
> >professional help?
>
> Fear of appropriate stimuli is an important and normal behaviour which
> promotes specific physiological responses - crudely, the 'fight or flight'
> reaction. The absence of this reaction in the wild would ensure that one
> ended up very quickly on a predator's lunch menu, but maybe you, who is
> without fear, would prefer to argue with rather than run away from a hungry
> lion.
>
> So yes, *maybe* anyone who "isn't afraid" should seek help. Many people
> who are labelled 'psychopaths' do not show (for example) an appropriate
> adrenaline response to various stimuli. They also display other traits,
> perhaps an unhealthy fascination with guns, or an intolerance of specific
> groups of people.
>
> Perhaps your claim to fearlessness is just 'internet bluster'. Perhaps you
> are indeed at least afraid of eternal damnation if you were not to believe
> in your god. Whatever, I would still suggest that the absence of fear is
> not a healthy trait.
And I would suggest that you get a life.
I do not desire to die today; that is not the same as saying I fear death.
I do not desire to be ripped up by a lion; that is not the same as saying
that I walk around shaking all day long, fearing a lion will pounce on me out
of the neighbors yard.
And it is an intolerance of SIN that I have, not of people. And that
intolerance is NOT fear of that sin, or that I will commit that sin, which was
my original claim when some boob started throwing around that "homophobe"
psychobabble again.
And the worst that can happen to me today is that I depart this life, and join
Jesus Christ in his glory.
Yeah, I'm really afraid -
Uh-huh
Yup.
>
> <snip>
>
> Martin Smith
> Cardiff
Louann Miller
of these topics, and get the answers, or do you want to continue
fighting about it? I have to tell you that learning will be more
difficult than arguing, but many people also find it more fun.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Now the FAQ could all be lies. But if there are blatant falsehoods
> > in it, it *must* be possible to find them, isolate them and refute
> > them, no?
>
> See my objection to the horse series, above. They list dates, with no method
> of arriving at them. How can this be refuted, without resorting to the "is
> so!" "is not!" type of childishness?
You could buckle down and do some research. I'm not asking you to do
field work, just hit a library. Your request for further detail is a
fair question; nobody claims that the FAQs do more than skim the
surface. But if you're honestly asking the question, it implies that
you're willing to listen to the answer.
I find about three screens of references at the end of the horse FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html#part11
The three individual items that the horse FAQ author recommends the most
are:
(direct cut & paste from FAQ)
Simpson, G.G. 1961. Horses. Doubleday & Co., New York. (An interesting
and readable, though outdated, account of horse evolution. Written for
the intelligent non-scientist by a prominent paleontologist.)
MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: a
current perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158. (A useful and readable
update on current evidence & theories of horse evolution.) [Louann's
note: this is a journal article. A college or medical school near you
will almost surely have it in the library, and non-students are normally
allowed to make photocopies of articles. The librarian will also help
you find the exact volume and issue.]
Prothero, D.R., & R.M. Schoch, eds. 1989. The Evolution of
Perissodactyls. Clarendon Press, New York. (A compilation of current
research and theories of perissodactyl evolution. The following chapters
were particularly useful:
Evander, R.L. Phylogeny of the family Equidae. pp. 109-126
MacFadden, B.J. Dental character variation in paleopopulations and
morphospecies of fossil horses and extant analogs. pp. 128-141
Hulbert, R.C. Phylogenetic interrelationsihps and evolution of North)
American late Neogene Equinae. pp. 176-196.
Prothero, D.R., & R.M. Schoch. Origin and evolution of the
perissodactyla: summary and synthesis. pp. 504-529.
Prothero, D.R., & N. Shubin. The evolution of Oligocene horses.
pp.142-175.
Winans, M.C. A quantitative study of North American fossil species of
the genus Equus. pp. 262-297.)
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers