Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Gabriel
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
: On Sep 27, 1:57 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
: > Stuart wrote:
: > > On Sep 26, 4:26 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
: >
: > [/]
: >
: > >> I find it hard to believe biology needs evolution to exist.
: >
: > > Evolution is the organizing theory of biology. Without, all biology
: > > is, is a collection of critters.
: >
: > Sorry Stu. Your argument does not hold water. Biology has been around longer
: > then evolution.
:
: chemistry has been around alot longer than atoms yet chemistry
: wouldn't make sense without the idea.
: >
: > Who knows where the real science of Biology would have taken us had the
: > notion of everything originating from common ancestor had not been adopted
: > and elevated to the status of truth.
:
: ah. the 'real' science...as defined by religious fanatics, rogues, and
: the 'god did it' crowd that for 2000 years retarded the advancement of
: civilization....
: >
: > Biology has testable models that can be verified and observed. Evolution has
: > some old bones and guesses while it hides behind biology's real work.
:
: guess he's never heard of bacterial resistance...evolution in action
No, that's not even close to the fish to man *version* of
evolution. Show a case of populations of bacteria "evolving"
into organisms over generations that are clearly no longer
bacteria at all, and now you'll be showing a case of the fish to
man version of evolution.
Unfortunately, many dishonestly (or out of ignorance)
continue to think showing how we adapt is even remotely the same
thing as the fish to man science-fiction version of evolution.
: >
: > Where is the "testable" model for evolution.
:
: where's the testable model of creation?
Bingo. Why the double standard?
:
: >
Baron Bodissey
>
<snip extremely annoying posting style>
>
Does it ever bother you that you have to lie about evolution and
misrepresent what it says in order to attack it? That should tell you
something.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon
wf3h
> : > Biology has testable models that can be verified and observed. Evolution has
> : > some old bones and guesses while it hides behind biology's real work.
> :
> : guess he's never heard of bacterial resistance...evolution in action
>
> No, that's not even close to the fish to man *version* of
> evolution.
yep, it sure is. it's a testable mechanism.
Show a case of populations of bacteria "evolving"
> into organisms over generations that are clearly no longer
> bacteria at all, and now you'll be showing a case of the fish to
> man version of evolution.
check the fossil record for evidence of evolution producing new
species. it's there for you to see
and i notice you have said zip about how 'god did it' works.
>
> Unfortunately, many dishonestly (or out of ignorance)
> continue to think showing how we adapt is even remotely the same
> thing as the fish to man science-fiction version of evolution.
you, of course, have offered no counter proof to this at all...other
than your self aggrandizing view that you're right becaues you're
right.
and you play with concepts about science that no scientist would agree
with.
>
> : >
> : > Where is the "testable" model for evolution.
> :
> : where's the testable model of creation?
>
> Bingo. Why the double standard?
?? really? you've never heard of MRSA? bacterial resistance? those are
testable examples of evolution
so you just refuse to answer the question about creationism
mainly 'cuz you aint got an answer
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Why would lying bother a dedicated servant of Satan like Gabriel? He
considers it his duty.
Gabriel
<mct...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On Oct 14, 6:32 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: <snip extremely annoying posting style>
: >
:
: Does it ever bother you that you have to lie about evolution and
: misrepresent what it says in order to attack it? That should tell you
: something.
You're free to point out exactly how I misrepresented it
rather than just saying I did.
:
: Baron Bodissey
Gregory A Greenman
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT), Baron Bodissey
> <mct...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : >
> : <snip extremely annoying posting style>
> : >
> : Does it ever bother you that you have to lie about evolution and
> : misrepresent what it says in order to attack it? That should tell you
> : something.
>
> You're free to point out exactly how I misrepresented it
> rather than just saying I did.
I hope I have the same freedom.
1. The claim that science has proven that evolution (at least on a
macro scale) does not happen is a flat out lie.
2. When people mention fossils, you switch to "dead bones", which
is not the same thing.
3. Your constant refrain that evolution is not testable nor
observable when in fact, it is both.
4. Your rather bizarre characterization of evolution as requiring
fish to learn to breathe air and to read and write. This one is
pretty good. If it were just a little better, I'd nominate you for
a Backspace award.
5. Your frequent referral of evolution as "molecules to man"
(whatever that means - do you think we are not made of molecules?)
or as "fish to man".
6. Your claim that programmers (a group which includes me) write
programs in a way that involves a nested hierarchy.
This is off the top of my head, so I may have missed some.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Gabriel
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
: On Oct 14, 6:32 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 04:50:39 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
: > > : >
: > : > Biology has testable models that can be verified and observed. Evolution has
: > : > some old bones and guesses while it hides behind biology's real work.
: > :
: > : guess he's never heard of bacterial resistance...evolution in action
: >
: > No, that's not even close to the fish to man *version* of
: > evolution.
:
: yep, it sure is. it's a testable mechanism.
No, their version of fish to man evolution is missing the
imagined mechanism that states populations of mosquitoes, for
example, can produce, over generations, animals that are clearly
no longer mosquitoes at all. Such an imagined thing has never
once been observed, is not testable and is not verifiable - in
fact science can repeatedly show, test and verify that this never
happens. So science disproves the fish to man version of
evolution at will.
:
: Show a case of populations of bacteria "evolving"
: > into organisms over generations that are clearly no longer
: > bacteria at all, and now you'll be showing a case of the fish to
: > man version of evolution.
:
: check the fossil record for evidence of evolution producing new
: species. it's there for you to see
No, that's just their beliefs that those dead bones are
telling them this. Huge difference. Unless they're trying to
claim that whatever beliefs a person comes to while looking at
dead bones automatically makes said beliefs facts, which seems to
be what they're doing, which is dishonesty at best.
:
: and i notice you have said zip about how 'god did it' works.
I'm not claiming God is "scientific fact". And you're
using the "argument from ignorance" (look it up) to try to make
your beliefs truth by default.
:
: >
: > Unfortunately, many dishonestly (or out of ignorance)
: > continue to think showing how we adapt is even remotely the same
: > thing as the fish to man science-fiction version of evolution.
:
: you, of course, have offered no counter proof to this at all...other
: than your self aggrandizing view that you're right becaues you're
: right.
Don't need a counter-proof - need only show how what they
believe is just that: a belief: unobservable, untestable and
unverifiable.
:
: and you play with concepts about science that no scientist would agree
: with.
:
: >
: > : >
: > : > Where is the "testable" model for evolution.
: > :
: > : where's the testable model of creation?
: >
: > Bingo. Why the double standard?
:
: ?? really? you've never heard of MRSA? bacterial resistance? those are
: testable examples of evolution
No, those are example of bacteria producing bacteria. An
example of the fish to man version of evolution would be akin to
populations of bacteria producing, over generations, things that
are clearly no longer bacteria at all.
:
: so you just refuse to answer the question about creationism
:
: mainly 'cuz you aint got an answer
The answers are there any time people are willing to stop
ignoring it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
www.icr.org
www.creationontheweb.com
Gabriel
<s...@sig.below> wrote:
: Gabriel wrote:
: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT), Baron Bodissey
: > <mct...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > : On Oct 14, 6:32=A0pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : <snip extremely annoying posting style>
: > : >
: > :=20
: > : Does it ever bother you that you have to lie about evolution and
: > : misrepresent what it says in order to attack it? That should tell you
: > : something.
: >
: > You're free to point out exactly how I misrepresented it
: > rather than just saying I did.
:
:
: I hope I have the same freedom.
You do, unfortunately, some items in your list have
nothing to do with how the fish to man version of evolution is
misrepresented.
:
: 1. The claim that science has proven that evolution (at least on a
: macro scale) does not happen is a flat out lie.
It's repeatedly observable, testable and verifiable that,
for example, populations of rats only *ever* produce, over
generations, more rats. That's science proving the fish to man
*version* of evolution is false.
:
: 2. When people mention fossils, you switch to "dead bones", which
: is not the same thing.
Dead bones are one type of fossil. When people mention
fossils to "prove" humans evolved from fish, they are referring
to dead bones of animals and how they are supposedly
"intermediate forms" and/or how the one animal is the predecessor
of the next.
:
: 3. Your constant refrain that evolution is not testable nor
: observable when in fact, it is both.
You're claiming it's *observable? Other evolutionists are
at least honest enough to point out it's not. So then, you're
free to show an observation of your fish to man version of
evolution, not mosquitoes producing more mosquitoes, but
mosquitoes producing, over generations, animals that are clearly
no longer mosquitoes at all. According to some evolutionists, its
impossible to observe given the claimed timetable - according to
you it is observable. I await you showing said observations of
that version of evolution.
:
: 4. Your rather bizarre characterization of evolution as requiring
: fish to learn to breathe air and to read and write. This one is
: pretty good. If it were just a little better, I'd nominate you for
: a Backspace award.
Now you're straying into opinionated attacks. This is
exactly what the fish to man version of evolution claims: that
fish, over generations, somehow started breathing air, somehow
started walking upright on two lets, and someone started learning
to read and write every language known to man. If that image
bothers you, it should, because it's exactly the sort of absurd
thing they believe in.
:
: 5. Your frequent referral of evolution as "molecules to man"
: (whatever that means - do you think we are not made of molecules?)
: or as "fish to man".
They claim molecules were the first life form of which
all subsequent life evolved. This is not true? What was the first
life form then? Fish?
:
: 6. Your claim that programmers (a group which includes me) write
: programs in a way that involves a nested hierarchy.
This has nothing to do with how I supposedly
"misrepresented" the fish to man version of evolution.
:
: This is off the top of my head, so I may have missed some.
DJT
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
>
>
> : On Oct 14, 6:32 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 04:50:39 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
> : > > : >
> : > : > Biology has testable models that can be verified and observed. Evolution has
> : > : > some old bones and guesses while it hides behind biology's real work.
> : > :
> : > : guess he's never heard of bacterial resistance...evolution in action
> : >
> : > No, that's not even close to the fish to man *version* of
> : > evolution.
> :
> : yep, it sure is. it's a testable mechanism.
>
> No, their version of fish to man evolution is missing the
> imagined mechanism that states populations of mosquitoes, for
> example, can produce, over generations, animals that are clearly
> no longer mosquitoes at all.
What do you feel is missing? The far descendants of mosquitos will
still be insects, and still be "mosquitos" but they will
be highly modified mosquitos. Evolution doesn't change creatures
into something they are not.
> Such an imagined thing has never
> once been observed,
Such an 'imagined thing" is a strawman. Evoluiton doesn't change
creatures into something totally alien.
> is not testable and is not verifiable - in
> fact science can repeatedly show, test and verify that this never
> happens.
Beating a strawman is easy. Try adressing the real thing.
> So science disproves the fish to man version of
> evolution at will.
Except that in the "fish to man" version of evolution, 'man" is still
a fish. Humans are highly modified 'fish' (ie. vertabrates), they
didn't become something entirely different. The process by which
"fish" became tetrapods is well demonstrated by evolutionary theory.
The fossil record clearly shows that early tetrapods were descendants
of fish. Humans are just one more branch on the tetrapod family
tree.
snip
.
> :
> : check the fossil record for evidence of evolution producing new
> : species. it's there for you to see
>
> No, that's just their beliefs that those dead bones are
> telling them this.
Do you deny that those "dead bones" once were parts of live
creatures? If the "dead bones" are telling scientists something,
why shouldn't scientists listen to what those "dead bones" are telling
them?
> Huge difference.
How is it a "huge difference"?
> Unless they're trying to
> claim that whatever beliefs a person comes to while looking at
> dead bones automatically makes said beliefs facts, which seems to
> be what they're doing, which is dishonesty at best.
Whatever a person can deduce from "dead bones" is scientific fact.
If you feel that the deduction is wrong, provide some other, testable
explanation for the message those bones are sending. The point being
that "dead bones" tell a story about what the live animal was, and how
it lived. The same way that "dead bones" of murder victims can tell
trained criminologists about how the person lived and died.
>
> :
> : and i notice you have said zip about how 'god did it' works.
>
> I'm not claiming God is "scientific fact". And you're
> using the "argument from ignorance" (look it up) to try to make
> your beliefs truth by default.
No, he's pointing out that "Goddidit' is not a scientific concept.
If there isn't any scientific alternative, why deny the findings
science has made?
snip
> : you, of course, have offered no counter proof to this at all...other
> : than your self aggrandizing view that you're right becaues you're
> : right.
>
> Don't need a counter-proof - need only show how what they
> believe is just that: a belief: unobservable, untestable and
> unverifiable.
But a scientific theory is observable, testable and verifiable.
That is what makes it science. What scientists believe about a
particular fossil isn't just assumptions, and guesses. It's based on
scientific investigation.
snip
> : ?? really? you've never heard of MRSA? bacterial resistance? those are
> : testable examples of evolution
>
> No, those are example of bacteria producing bacteria.
But producing different bacteria. That's what evolution is all
about.
> An
> example of the fish to man version of evolution would be akin to
> populations of bacteria producing, over generations, things that
> are clearly no longer bacteria at all.
Why? As pointed out before, 'man' is just a modified fish, at least
in cladistic terms. Bacteria produce modified bacterial.
>
> :
> : so you just refuse to answer the question about creationism
> :
> : mainly 'cuz you aint got an answer
>
> The answers are there any time people are willing to stop
> ignoring it.
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.aspwww.icr.orgwww.creationontheweb.com
Citing creationist websites isn't really going to win anyone over.
Perhaps you'd like to take one or more points from those websites and
try to defend them?
DJT
wf3h
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
> : yep, it sure is. it's a testable mechanism.
>
> No, their version of fish to man evolution is missing the
> imagined mechanism that states populations of mosquitoes, for
> example, can produce, over generations, animals that are clearly
> no longer mosquitoes at all.
?? that's the whole point to differential reproduction by natural
selection. that's a mechanism. that you say it ISNT doesnt make it so
Such an imagined thing has never
> once been observed, is not testable and is not verifiable -
it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
of evolution
in
> fact science can repeatedly show, test and verify that this never
> happens. So science disproves the fish to man version of
> evolution at will.
wrong. the laws of science apply through space and time. otherwise the
term 'law' has no meaning
and if there are no laws, there's certainly no law giving god of the
creationists. seems you're hoist on your own petard
>
> :
> : Show a case of populations of bacteria "evolving"
> : > into organisms over generations that are clearly no longer
> : > bacteria at all, and now you'll be showing a case of the fish to
> : > man version of evolution.
> :
> : check the fossil record for evidence of evolution producing new
> : species. it's there for you to see
>
> No, that's just their beliefs that those dead bones are
> telling them this.
no moreso than in any other science.
> :
> : and i notice you have said zip about how 'god did it' works.
>
> I'm not claiming God is "scientific fact". And you're
> using the "argument from ignorance" (look it up) to try to make
> your beliefs truth by default.
sorry, sport. unless you can prove the laws of science DONT apply
through time (and i can prove they DO) you have a problem
with your assertions
>
> :
> : >
> : > Unfortunately, many dishonestly (or out of ignorance)
> : > continue to think showing how we adapt is even remotely the same
> : > thing as the fish to man science-fiction version of evolution.
> :
> : you, of course, have offered no counter proof to this at all...other
> : than your self aggrandizing view that you're right becaues you're
> : right.
>
> Don't need a counter-proof - need only show how what they
> believe is just that: a belief: unobservable, untestable and
> unverifiable.
i just gave you the evidence. where's your counter evidence?
>
> :
> :
> : ?? really? you've never heard of MRSA? bacterial resistance? those are
> : testable examples of evolution
>
> No, those are example of bacteria producing bacteria.
and we are just another species of ape. seems you think humans and
apes can interbreed because
we're just another ape.
>
> :
> : so you just refuse to answer the question about creationism
> :
> : mainly 'cuz you aint got an answer
>
> The answers are there any time people are willing to stop
> ignoring it.
i've seen the answers in genesis crap. as a scientist, it's nonsense.
creationism was a dead idea 2000 years
ago and it's dead today. that's why no one uses it.
Garamond Lethe
Oh, really?
"True rodents are widely considered to have originated in Asia. Rodents
first appear in the fossil record at the end of the Paleocene and
earliest Eocene in Asia and North America, about 54 million years ago
(Meng et al. 1994). These original rodents were themselves descended from
rodent-like ancestors called anagalids, which also gave rise to the
Lagomorpha, or rabbit group.
"Murids (Muridae), the family that gave rise to present-day Norway rats,
house mice, hamsters, voles, and gerbils, first appeared during the late
Eocene (around 34 million years ago). Modern murids had evolved by the
Miocene (23.8-5 mya) and radiated during the Pliocene (5.3-1.8 mya) (for
more, see Introduction to the Rodentia).
"The genus Rattus first emerged within the Muridae family about 3.5
(Furano and Usdin 1995) to 5-6 million years ago (Verneau et al. 1998).
The Rattus genus was native to the Mediterranean countries, the Middle
East, India, China, Japan, and Southeast Asia (including the Philipines,
New Guinea and Australia) (Krinke 2000). After it arose, the Rattus genus
underwent two episodes of intense speciation, one about 2.7 million years
ago, and another began about 1.2 million years ago and may still be
ongoing (Verneau et al. 1998).
"The ancestors of Rattus norvegicus and R. rattus diverged from each
other about 2 million years ago (Verneau et al. 1998). The closest
relative of R. norvegicus is Rattus cf moluccarius (Verneau et al. 1998,
Cabot et al. 1997, Usdin et al. 1995). The split between these two
species occured around 0.5 million years ago (Verneau et al. 1998).
Today, there are 51 species within the genus Rattus."
http://www.ratbehavior.org/history.htm
Here's the Verneau article.
"Determining and dating recent rodent speciation events by using L1
(LINE-1) retrotransposons", PNAS September 15, 1998 vol. 95 no. 19
11284-11289
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/19/11284.full
I assume you're familiar with it. Would you mind pointing out the errors
in their methodology?
<snip>
The Enigmatic One
gabriel...@hotmail.com says...
>: so you just refuse to answer the question about creationism
>:
>: mainly 'cuz you aint got an answer
>
> The answers are there any time people are willing to stop
>ignoring it.
Holy shit!
You're a moron!
-Tim
Mike Painter
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:54:01 -0500, Gabriel wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:13:03 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
>> <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>>
<Snip>
> > Here's the Verneau article.
>
> "Determining and dating recent rodent speciation events by using L1
> (LINE-1) retrotransposons", PNAS September 15, 1998 vol. 95 no. 19
> 11284-11289
> http://www.pnas.org/content/95/19/11284.full
>
> I assume you're familiar with it. Would you mind pointing out the
> errors in their methodology?
>
> <snip>
I can give you a brief overview of his answer which will be more wordy,
unless he ignores your response.
"Oh Yeah?, Were you there? Did you see it happen? "
Hope that didn't confuse you :)
Garamond Lethe
Oh, I think he'll ignore it. Responding would come too close to
admitting specific, published, cited evidence exists to refute his silly
assertion.
Gabriel
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not at all - very simply, it's all speculation on what it
supposedly means to some people - i.e., beliefs. Others show very
different beliefs when looking at those same bones. For starters,
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
www.icr.org
www.creationontheweb.com
Not that it matters - either way it's all beliefs about
what those fossils mean to individual people.
Now, people are free to believe whatever they wish when
looking at those fossils, but it doesn't change the fact that the
fish to man version of evolution they believe in has never been
observed, is not testable and is not verifiable. Ergo, not even
scientific fact, just beliefs.
Garamond Lethe
Which bit is speculation? Please quote from the article.
> Others show very
> different beliefs when looking at those same bones.
There are no bones mentioned in the article. Did you read it?
> For starters,
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp www.icr.org
> www.creationontheweb.com
>
> Not that it matters - either way it's all beliefs about
> what those fossils mean to individual people.
Where does Verneau mention fossils?
>
> Now, people are free to believe whatever they wish when
> looking at those fossils,
What fossils?
> but it doesn't change the fact that the fish
> to man version of evolution they believe in has never been observed,
I gave you a paper of nothing but observations. Are you unable to read
it?
> is
> not testable and is not verifiable.
Then how do you explain the tests and verification Verneau performed?
Please reference the article in your answer.
> Ergo, not even scientific fact, just
> beliefs.
Which ones? Please be specific.
You said "populations of rats only *ever* produce, over generations, more
rats." I've shown you that this is obviously false, and that one doesn't
even need to reference the fossil record to determine this.
Mike Painter
>
> Not at all - very simply, it's all speculation on what it
> supposedly means to some people - i.e., beliefs. Others show very
> different beliefs when looking at those same bones. For starters,
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
> www.icr.org
> www.creationontheweb.com
>
practice science.
Science says *everything* must be falsifiable, they say that any evidence
that does not agree with the bible must be denied.
If they were football referees and believed in Cumberland, Cumberland would
have won their 1916 game. (They came in second with a score of zero, the
team just ahead of last place scored 222 points.)
Thurisaz the Einherjer
RUN FORREST RUN!
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Andrew
> Would you mind pointing out the errors in their methodology?
An excellent example of evolutionary storytelling, using things
like assigned dates, and phrases such as ''widely considered
to have."
The objective evidence of this is based on fossil bones. The
relationship between them is highly speculative - but it makes
a story to support their myth.
"It comes as rather a surprise to most non-taxonomists how
uncertain our understanding of degrees of relationship among
organisms still is today.
For instance, it is still unknown for most orders of birds which
other order is a given order's nearest relative. The same is true
for many mammalian families and genera, for instance the Lag-
omorpha, Tubulidentata, Xenarthra, and Tupaia.
Honesty compels us to admit that our ignorance concerning
these relationships is still great, not to say overwhelming."
-- Ernst Mayr, "The Growth of Biological Thought"
John Baker
You're giving him far too much credit.
>
>
> -Tim
Ye Old One
But you can't come up with anything better.
And until you do....
--
Bob.
TimK
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:nL-dnUIhE4B6woDU...@earthlink.com...
As a grad student I had the privilege of hanging out with Dr. Mayr and
talking at length about evolution one day. In fact, if you ever saw the PBS
documentary on aging and the mind, which began with his giving a talk to a
small group of students, you saw me in the background. I'm somewhat familiar
with his work.
First of all, how fucking dare you use one of his quotes out of context as
if he were casting doubt on evolution - evolution had no stronger proponent.
It's difficult to see this as anything but willful dishonesty on your part.
Second, he was a co-founder of the modern synthesis, which is when fossils
took second stage to genes in the science of evolution. You're either
profoundly ignorant, or a fucking liar. Which is it? In any case, there is
an amusing amount of irony in the ignorance of this quote mine of yours.
Pinhead
Ralph
Andrew, would you kindly make a better distinction between your words and
the quote which you are mining. Also what you are showing is not a direct
quote from the book. I know you haven't read the book because it is 996
pages long and a creationist has the attention span of a gnat. If you would,
just give the web reference for the creationist crap site off of which you
stole the quote:-)). If you want to know what Ernst Mayr really says you
should get one of his books. "What Evolution Is" is a current book and a
quick read would show you just how simple you are.
Kermit
> "Garamond Lethe" wrote in messagenews:pan.2008.11...@news.thundernews.com...
The dates are assigned based on geological strata, fossil indices,
radiometric dating, and correlation with various events such as
volcanic eruptions, ice cores, etc. Not only do predictions in any of
these differing methods continue to be confirmed, but they all present
a converging picture.
You sound rather like a defense attorney when the defendent has
arrayed against him videos, DNA evidence, multiple eyewitnesses,
fingerprints, and an accomplice's confession.
"Just speculation".
<snort>
As for scientists saying things like "widely considered to have
(happened)", they show the lack of humility that religious fanatics
and other who deny reality assume. Scientists will always admit the
possibility that new evidence may throw new light on a subject, or
that they may have made an error. But folks like you will
simultaneously accuse them of arrogance and uncertainty - because they
have a wealth of evidence and humility.
You, of course, have true arrogance (you are infallible), and no
evidence (no evidence is good enough for a Creationist, and no
evidence is good enough for a Creationist).
>
> The objective evidence of this is based on fossil bones. The
> relationship between them is highly speculative - but it makes
> a story to support their myth.
What is "highly speculative" about them?
The relationship is based on hundreds of characteristics, changing
over time. More modern forms of fossil animals show what are clearly
modifications of what came before. The chronological transformation
over time, and the nested hierarchy that is formed by the derivative
morphologies seen cannot be explained by any other testable model.
Genetics, of course, tells us even more.
>
> "It comes as rather a surprise to most non-taxonomists how
> uncertain our understanding of degrees of relationship among
> organisms still is today.
>
> For instance, it is still unknown for most orders of birds which
> other order is a given order's nearest relative. The same is true
> for many mammalian families and genera, for instance the Lag-
> omorpha, Tubulidentata, Xenarthra, and Tupaia.
>
> Honesty compels us to admit that our ignorance concerning
> these relationships is still great, not to say overwhelming."
>
> -- Ernst Mayr, "The Growth of Biological Thought"
Of course Dr. Mayr was a major contributer in evolutionary science.
Honesty would compel you to admit that ignorance is all you have.
Scientists admit what they don't know, and try to reliably find out.
Creationists deny evidence, and want to pretend that what they claim
has anything to do with reality.
If there is a creator god, he made us through evolution, just as he
makes rain through evaporation and condensation.
Kermit
Garamond Lethe
That's how literate people write.
> The objective evidence of this is based on fossil bones.
Then why are most of these authors going on and on about DNA evidence?
> The
> relationship between them is highly speculative
Only to people who haven't studied them.
> - but it makes a story
> to support their myth.
I think you mean theory.
<snip quote mine>
> -- Ernst Mayr, "The Growth of Biological Thought"
Hey, a quote mine from 1982! Do you have anything from, say, the last 25
years? Do you think maybe our knowledge has increased just a bit since
Mayr wrote this?
Let me ask again: after reading the articles cited above, do you have
any issues with their methodology? If their methodology is sound, how do
their conclusions not follow?
Finding the articles (and book) on scholar.google.com is pretty trivial.
If you find one behind a pay wall that you're interested in, your local
library might be able to track down a copy. Most authors are willing to
send email electronic copies if you ask politely (try asking the most
junior author on the paper first). If that doesn't work, post a request
here and a copy might appear in your inbox.
Garamond.
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:24:25 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
Well, he cannot even come up with something as good, that
fits the evidence *as well* as what science says.
> And until you do....
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we
find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which
the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails
on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude
a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the
centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity,
central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived
dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's
negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific
community." (page 64)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Andre
Garamond Lethe
Let me second that. I'm reading _What Evolution Is_ right now and after
only the first three chapters, I think it's the best popular book on
evolution I've read. It's much closer in spirit to a textbook than _Your
Inner Fish_ or _The Selfish Gene_. Mayr isn't trying to tell a story.
He's giving a detailed, factual outline of a huge scientific discipline.
It demands -- and repays -- close attention.
My only frustration with the book is that Mayr can't go three sentences
without saying something interesting, but he provides citations only to
the most important facts. I can see why he had to do this -- otherwise,
the bibliography would be as large as the book.
Ralph
"Garamond Lethe" <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
After the generations of his spectacular career, he probably thought that if
he wrote it, that was a citation:-))).
Mike Painter
>>
>>> Would you mind pointing out the errors in their methodology?
>>
>> uncertain our understanding of degrees of relationship among
>> organisms still is today.
>>
>> For instance, it is still unknown for most orders of birds which
>> other order is a given order's nearest relative. The same is true
>> for many mammalian families and genera, for instance the Lag-
>> omorpha, Tubulidentata, Xenarthra, and Tupaia.
>>
>> Honesty compels us to admit that our ignorance concerning
>> these relationships is still great, not to say overwhelming."
>>
>> -- Ernst Mayr, "The Growth of Biological Thought"
>
> As a grad student I had the privilege of hanging out with Dr. Mayr and
> talking at length about evolution one day. In fact, if you ever saw
> the PBS documentary on aging and the mind, which began with his
> giving a talk to a small group of students, you saw me in the
> background. I'm somewhat familiar with his work.
>
> First of all, how fucking dare you use one of his quotes out of
> context as if he were casting doubt on evolution - evolution had no
> stronger proponent. It's difficult to see this as anything but
> willful dishonesty on your part. Second, he was a co-founder of the
> modern synthesis, which is when fossils took second stage to genes in
> the science of evolution. You're either profoundly ignorant, or a
> fucking liar. Which is it? In any case, there is an amusing amount of
> irony in the ignorance of this quote mine of yours. Pinhead
He has no faith, is not honest, and clearly not very bright.
He can't even cherry pick a good quote.
He seems to believe that an admission of ignorance is a bad thing but
oveerlooks the fact that Mayr does not imply in any way that there may not
be a relationship, just that science is uncertain about the degree. I'm
uncertain about the best way to get to Booneville, California, but know
Boonveville and a "best" way to get there exists.
He needs to take lessons from AiG or ICR for proper quote mining.
E.G. Mike says, "The American flag is Red, White, and Blue"
A proper AiG qoute would be Mike said the American flag is Red and that
makes him a commie.
Gregory A Greenman
> <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> : Gabriel wrote:
> : > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT), Baron Bodissey
> : > <mct...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > : On Oct 14, 6:32=A0pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : <snip extremely annoying posting style>
> : > : >
> : > :=20
> : > : Does it ever bother you that you have to lie about evolution and
> : > : misrepresent what it says in order to attack it? That should tell you
> : > : something.
> : >
> : > You're free to point out exactly how I misrepresented it
> : > rather than just saying I did.
> :
> :
> : I hope I have the same freedom.
>
> You do,
Great! Thanks!
> unfortunately, some items in your list have
> nothing to do with how the fish to man version of evolution is
> misrepresented.
Not that I can see. All the points pertain to your lies and
obfuscations about evolution.
> : 1. The claim that science has proven that evolution (at least on a
> : macro scale) does not happen is a flat out lie.
>
> It's repeatedly observable, testable and verifiable that,
> for example, populations of rats only *ever* produce, over
> generations, more rats. That's science proving the fish to man
> *version* of evolution is false.
Wrong. Suppose I flipped a coin ten times and it came up heads
every time. Would that prove that this coin would only land heads
up? Suppose it was a hundred times? Or a thousand? Is there some
point where it became proven that the coin could not land tails up?
Of course with evolution, the changes from one generation are
rarely great enough for the new generation to be considered a new
species. So citing that as evidence against evolution is quite
disingenuous.
> : 2. When people mention fossils, you switch to "dead bones", which
> : is not the same thing.
>
> Dead bones are one type of fossil. When people mention
> fossils to "prove" humans evolved from fish, they are referring
> to dead bones of animals and how they are supposedly
> "intermediate forms" and/or how the one animal is the predecessor
> of the next.
Again, "dead bones" are not the only type of fossil. Neither are
they the only type used as evidence of evolution. Shells, hair,
occasionally soft tissue, nails, scales, feathers, coprolites and
probly lots of other stuff I haven't thought of can also become
fossils. These all provide evidence as to what organisms lived in
the past.
I suspect that the reason you change "fossil" to "dead bones" is
because it sounds less scientific and more Dr Frankensteinish. Am I
wrong?
> : 3. Your constant refrain that evolution is not testable nor
> : observable when in fact, it is both.
>
> You're claiming it's *observable?
Of course.
> Other evolutionists are
> at least honest enough to point out it's not.
Not at all. They are honest, but they realize that you are not. You
are trying to hijack the word "observation" to mean "observed the
process in real time". They point out that wrt evolution, that's
often not possible. The process of speciation usually takes tens of
thousands of years. That's what they are pointing out. If you think
I am wrong about this, then cite a post and ask the poster to
clarify. You'll find that he will say what I just did.
> So then, you're
> free to show an observation of your fish to man version of
> evolution, not mosquitoes producing more mosquitoes, but
> mosquitoes producing, over generations, animals that are clearly
> no longer mosquitoes at all. According to some evolutionists, its
> impossible to observe given the claimed timetable - according to
> you it is observable. I await you showing said observations of
> that version of evolution.
No problem. I've mentioned whale evolution in other posts to you.
Go read the article at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution
Note pakicetids are ancestors of whales. I think you'll have to
agree that a whale is "clearly not a pakicetid". And note the
evidence linking them to modern whales:
"They have been linked to whales by their ears: the structure of
the auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only. The
shape of the ear region in Pakicetus is highly unusual and only
resembles the skulls of whales. The feature is diagnostic for
cetaceans and is found in no other species."
That's an observation. I hope you are happy.
> : 4. Your rather bizarre characterization of evolution as requiring
> : fish to learn to breathe air and to read and write. This one is
> : pretty good. If it were just a little better, I'd nominate you for
> : a Backspace award.
>
> Now you're straying into opinionated attacks.
Huh? Are you referring to my suggestion that you are almost worthy
of a Backspace award? If you don't want to be ridiculed, I suggest
you don't write such ridiculous nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you
know that no one claims that a fish "learned" to breathe air, etc.
You just write that nonsense to try to make evolution look stupid.
It's not my fault that that backfires on you.
> This is
> exactly what the fish to man version of evolution claims: that
> fish, over generations, somehow started breathing air,
There are species of lungfish alive today. If you are not educated
enough to be aware of that, perhaps you ought to do some learning
before you try to tell scientists that they've got it all wrong.
> somehow started walking upright on two lets,
There are walking catfish alive today as well. Also, Tiktaalik is
an important piece of evidence supporting evolution. Scientists
predicted they would find Tiktaalik fossils in a certain location,
in part based on evolutionary theory, and they did. I suggest you
read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
> and someone started learning
> to read and write every language known to man. If that image
> bothers you, it should, because it's exactly the sort of absurd
> thing they believe in.
"Someone" did not learn every language. Several someones did. Is
this something you really want to dispute? What alternative is
there? That some human languages were never learned by anybody?
> : 5. Your frequent referral of evolution as "molecules to man"
> : (whatever that means - do you think we are not made of molecules?)
> : or as "fish to man".
>
> They claim molecules were the first life form
Huh? Can you cite a scientist that claims that molecules were the
first life form?
> of which
> all subsequent life evolved. This is not true? What was the first
> life form then? Fish?
Of course not. Fish came much later. The first life form would have
been some sort of microorganism.
Further, the more important point here is that man is not the end
target of evolution. We are one of the results of evolution, but so
are elephants and lobsters and tulips and various bacteria, etc.
Describing evolution as "<anything> to man" is about as accurate as
describing the US highway system as "<anywhere> to New York".
> : 6. Your claim that programmers (a group which includes me) write
> : programs in a way that involves a nested hierarchy.
>
> This has nothing to do with how I supposedly
> "misrepresented" the fish to man version of evolution.
You tried to refute the nested hierarchy of life by claiming that
programmers write programs using a nested hierarchy. The nested
hierarchy is one of the most important evidences that supports the
theory of evolution, so this very much is on topic.
John Harshman
Fortunately, science advances. Since Mayr wrote that, we have learned
quite a bit more about the relationships of birds and mammals. We still
don't know the closest relatives of the majority of bird orders, though
we know quite a bit more about that than Mayr did. See Hackett, S. J.,
R. T. Kimball, S. Reddy, R. C. K. Bowie, E. L. Braun, M. J. Braun, J. L.
Chojnowski, W. A. Cox, K.-L. Han, J. Harshman, C. J. Huddleston, B. D.
Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. A. Moore, F. H. Sheldon, D. W. Steadman, C. C.
Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their
evolutionary history. Science 320:1763-1768.
And we know the closest relatives of almost all mammal orders.
Lagomorpha is the sister of Rodentia; Tubulidentata is part of
Afrotheria; Xenarthra is either the sister group of all other Eutheria
or the sister group of Afrotheria (which is not completely clear yet,
but the latter is looking pretty good); Tupaia (if by that Mayr meant
all of Scandentia, not just the one genus) is the sister group of
Primates plus Dermoptera. Sorry, no one-stop shopping for mammal
phylogeny. (tolweb.org, my favorite single web reference, hasn't had its
mammal pages updated since 1995!)
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:49:19 -0500, Ralph wrote:
The description of this work on amazon.com sounds very good.
I'll add it to my list, thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Also, in terms of books that are huge and have huge endnotes,
I offer up Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi. (A recent bargain get at Borders
for $10)
It runs 1648 pages, and the endnotes, etc., are on an
accompanying CD, as the book said that the endnotes would
otherwise have run well over 1000 more pages of text.
Andre
Gabriel
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
: On Nov 12, 5:37 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
: > > :
: > : yep, it sure is. it's a testable mechanism.
: >
: > No, their version of fish to man evolution is missing the
: > imagined mechanism that states populations of mosquitoes, for
: > example, can produce, over generations, animals that are clearly
: > no longer mosquitoes at all.
:
: ?? that's the whole point to differential reproduction by natural
: selection. that's a mechanism. that you say it ISNT doesnt make it so
:
: Such an imagined thing has never
: > once been observed, is not testable and is not verifiable -
:
: it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
: student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
: MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
: of evolution
Populations of bacteria producing, over generations, more
bacteria that might be different but still bacteria is not the
fish to man version of evolution you believe in - it's adaptation
that we already know takes place. Until anyone shows an
observation and/or test/verification of populations of bacteria
producing, over generations, things that are clearly no longer
bacteria at all, or populations of rats producing, over
generations, animals that are no longer rats at all, and so on,
then what they claim remains an unobservable, untestable,
unverifiable belief that they have faith in. Welcome to religion.
:
: in
Gabriel
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
That Speciation, which this article is mostly about
(concerning rodents), is even remotely the fish to man version of
evolution they claim it is (as further evidenced by their
inability to find fossils of rat-like murines in the fossil
record, coupled with their inability to realize this shows, yet
again, that any of what they claim has any bearing with the
actual facts whatsoever).
But Speciation is adaptation: populations of rats, for
example, after being separated into two groups in different
environments for many generations producing rats that now start
to be different from each other. But here's the critical part:
both populations are **still rats**. This is not an observation
or test/verification of the fish to man version of evolution -
such an observation and/or test verification would be populations
of rats producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no
longer rats at all. (After all, every single animal alive
supposedly [according to their beliefs] was produced, over
generations, from animals that were **clearly** not that kind of
animal at all). And of that they don't have a single observation
and/or test/verification that such a thing is even possible. If
you have such an observation and/or test/verification, by all
means please provide that rather than yet another irrelevant
experiment centered around Speciation, when Speciation is not
even remotely close to the fish to man version of evolution they
believe in.
:
: > Others show very
:
Gabriel
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
: Gabriel wrote:
: >
: > Not at all - very simply, it's all speculation on what it
: > supposedly means to some people - i.e., beliefs. Others show very
: > different beliefs when looking at those same bones. For starters,
: >
: > www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
: > www.icr.org
: > www.creationontheweb.com
: >
: I don't know about the bottom link but ICR and AiG do not, by definition,
: practice science.
If it's as simple as that, then others can just say
"those who come up with beliefs that fish can evolve into human
beings do not, by definition, practice science." Wow, how easy it
is to debate when you can claim such a thing and not have to back
up a word of it.
Meanwhile, the beliefs of fish to man version of
evolution remain unobservable, untestable/unverifiable, proving
origins science belief in the fish to man version of evolution is
not, by definition, science.
TimK
"Gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j7tei45680mjmmogi...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:48:02 -0800, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> : Gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > Not at all - very simply, it's all speculation on what it
> : > supposedly means to some people - i.e., beliefs. Others show very
> : > different beliefs when looking at those same bones. For starters,
> : >
> : > www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
> : > www.icr.org
> : > www.creationontheweb.com
> : >
> : I don't know about the bottom link but ICR and AiG do not, by
> definition,
> : practice science.
>
> If it's as simple as that, then others can just say
> "those who come up with beliefs that fish can evolve into human
> beings do not, by definition, practice science." Wow, how easy it
> is to debate when you can claim such a thing and not have to back
> up a word of it.
>
> Meanwhile, the beliefs of fish to man version of
> evolution remain unobservable, untestable/unverifiable, proving
> origins science belief in the fish to man version of evolution is
> not, by definition, science.
Here's a clue for you, no one claims fish evolved into humans. You're
omitting too many steps there - not that a realistic interpretation of
evolution has ever been a goal of you liars-for-christ...
Mike Painter
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:48:02 -0800, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Gabriel wrote:
>> >
>>> Not at all - very simply, it's all speculation on what it
>>> supposedly means to some people - i.e., beliefs. Others show very
>>> different beliefs when looking at those same bones. For starters,
>>>
>>> www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
>>> www.icr.org
>>> www.creationontheweb.com
>>>
>> I don't know about the bottom link but ICR and AiG do not, by
>> definition, practice science.
>
> If it's as simple as that, then others can just say
> "those who come up with beliefs that fish can evolve into human
> beings do not, by definition, practice science." Wow, how easy it
> is to debate when you can claim such a thing and not have to back
> up a word of it.
>
No it is not.
Science says that evidence must be followed and theory must be falsifiable.
AiG and the others say that if the evidence does not support their idea of
creation then it must be wrong and that the bible can't be falsified.
They are playing a game with no balls, no bats, no bases and calling it
baseball.
They use a rule book that has 30,000 different teams all saying it does not
mean wht the other 29,999 say it does.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:47 -0800 (PST), wf3h
>
> :
> : it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
> : student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
> : MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
> : of evolution
>
> Populations of bacteria producing, over generations, more
> bacteria that might be different but still bacteria is not the
> fish to man version of evolution you believe in - it's adaptation
> that we already know takes place.
Well, the scientists who actually *study* such things will tell you
that it's evolution. Furthermore, they will tell you that it's the
only scientific explanation - i.e. an explanation which can be tested
using the tools of science - for man's origins. It is an explanation
which has withstood rigourous testing for well over a century, is
supported by vast amounts of evidence, and which makes predictions
about what we will find in the biology of existing organisms and the
fossil record.
What do you know that all those scientists don't?
> Until anyone shows an
> observation and/or test/verification of populations of bacteria
> producing, over generations, things that are clearly no longer
> bacteria at all, or populations of rats producing, over
> generations, animals that are no longer rats at all, and so on,
> then what they claim remains an unobservable, untestable,
> unverifiable belief that they have faith in.
So what is *your* explanation for the evidence from genetics,
comparative anatomy, biogeography, the fossil record and all the other
strands which support the conclusion that man's evolutionary ancestry
can be traced back to fish and, more importantly, how do you propose
to test it?
> Welcome to religion.
Forming conclusions from the evidence which can be tested by the
acquisition of more evidence is not religion.
RF
John Baker
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 2:41 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:47 -0800 (PST), wf3h
>>
>> <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>> :
>> : it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
>> : student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
>> : MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
>> : of evolution
>>
>> Populations of bacteria producing, over generations, more
>> bacteria that might be different but still bacteria is not the
>> fish to man version of evolution you believe in - it's adaptation
>> that we already know takes place.
>
>Well, the scientists who actually *study* such things will tell you
>that it's evolution. Furthermore, they will tell you that it's the
>only scientific explanation - i.e. an explanation which can be tested
>using the tools of science - for man's origins. It is an explanation
>which has withstood rigourous testing for well over a century, is
>supported by vast amounts of evidence, and which makes predictions
>about what we will find in the biology of existing organisms and the
>fossil record.
>
>What do you know that all those scientists don't?
I doubt very much that Gabe knows anything an average third grader
doesn't know, let alone anything scientists don't.
Gabriel
wrote:
: On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:24:25 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
And that's their version of "science". The "best"
God-rejecting story they could come up with. Case closed.
:
: And until you do....
Gabriel
: "Garamond Lethe" wrote in message news:pan.2008.11...@news.thundernews.com...
:
:
Well said.
Gabriel
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
No, you've have only added to your beliefs about how
they, according to them, are believed to be related. Huge
difference. In the meantime, they have no observations, no
tests/verifications that populations of mammals can produce, over
generations, birds. Just beliefs that it happens - that's not
science, but a religion.
[rest of beliefs deleted]
wf3h
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:47 -0800 (PST), wf3h
> : Such an imagined thing has never
> : > once been observed, is not testable and is not verifiable -
> :
> : it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
> : student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
> : MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
> : of evolution
>
> Populations of bacteria producing, over generations, more
> bacteria that might be different but still bacteria is not the
> fish to man version of evolution you believe in
sure it is. it's the change of a population with time..the very
DEFINITION of evolution
- it's adaptation
> that we already know takes place. Until anyone shows an
> observation and/or test/verification of populations of bacteria
> producing, over generations, things that are clearly no longer
> bacteria at all,
no science at all...physics, chemistry,etc., requires this level of
observation to support a theory. physics, for example, knows how stars
develop. we have never seen a star form from a gas cloud, live out its
life and explode as a supernova. yet we know the physics
your creationist view of science is a cult creationist assertion and
no scientist uses it.
or populations of rats producing, over
> generations, animals that are no longer rats at all, and so on,
> then what they claim remains an unobservable, untestable,
> unverifiable belief that they have faith in. Welcome to religion.
if it were religion we'd be carving symbols in stone and baying at the
moon instead of using a scientist invented computer to communicate
you need to spend time learning about how science is done instead of
listening to preachers telling you how it's done
having a creationist talk about science is like listening to a
prostitute talk about love
Gabriel
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Assumptions.
: fossil indices,
More assumptions.
: radiometric dating,
Still more assumptions.
: and correlation with various events such as
: volcanic eruptions, ice cores, etc.
More assumptions.
: Not only do predictions in any of
: these differing methods continue to be confirmed, but they all present
: a converging picture.
Do they? They just recently changed their assumptions yet
again and decided the grand canyon was many orders of magnitude
older than previously proclaimed.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/19/news-to-note-04192008#two
First they claim it's 5 million years old. Then 17
million years old. Now 48 million years old. Talk about guessing.
This is what happens when your dating methods are based on
numerous assumptions piled onto one another.
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
: You sound rather like a defense attorney when the defendent has
: arrayed against him videos, DNA evidence, multiple eyewitnesses,
Show one eyewitness that has observed populations of,
say, rats producing, over generations, animals which are clearly
no longer rats at all. Until they show such a thing, such a
test/verification, then their fish to man version of evolution
remains a belief that they continue to give reasons why they have
faith in it.
A more proper analogy would be showing up in courtroom
with thousands of pieces of supposed evidence, including DNA
evidence, fingerprints, a confession with the claim that "Bob
turned my friend into a sheep". The judge, using common sense,
would dismiss it all, and refute it quite plainly with "show me a
single observation and/or test/verification of anyone ever
turning another person into a sheep. Until such time, please
remove your ridiculous beliefs from my courtroom of logic.".
Please show a single observation and/or test/verification
of populations of mosquitoes producing, over generations, animals
that are clearly no longer mosquitoes at all. Until such time,
their fish to man version of evolution remains a belief they
continue to give reasons why they have faith in it.
The fact is the same evidence points many times more
logically to an intelligent designer, i.e., God.
In case you're actually interested in how it does so:
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
www.creationontheweb.com
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
Gabriel
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fossil and DNA and homology all more logically point to
creation by God than of the stories of fish evolving into men
over generations.
Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
Fossils
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
Age/Dating methods
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
In the meantime, please provide a single observation of
the fish to man version of evolution. For example, populations of
rats producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no
longer rats at all. Until they provide such an observation and/or
test/verification, then what they have faith in remains a belief,
nothing more. And it remains a lie when they call it scientific
fact rather than honestly calling it speculations they have faith
in.
:
: > The
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
So, you choose to accept the claims of those who reject science and try
to sell you their dishonest and disproven religious dogma. They are
morally corrupt fools. Other fools believe their lies.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 14 Nov 2008 18:53:14 GMT, Garamond Lethe
AIG is a confidence operation that preys on the ignorance of believers
and steals their money with false claims.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 14 Nov 2008 18:53:14 GMT, Garamond Lethe
>
And how do you propose to test this assertion using the tools of
science?
>
> Creationhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
>
> Fossilshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
>
> Age/Dating methodshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
>
Perhaps you can identify where any of those web sites offer an
alternative interpretation for the evidence which can be tested using
the tools of science.
> In the meantime, please provide a single observation of
> the fish to man version of evolution.
What's wrong with the numerous examples which have already been
provided?
More to the point, how do *you* explain the evidence in a way which
allows it to be tested using the tools of science?
> For example, populations of
> rats producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no
> longer rats at all.
Why is this a prediction of evolutionary theory?
> Until they provide such an observation and/or
> test/verification, then what they have faith in remains a belief,
> nothing more.
So what is your explanation for the vast amount of evidence which the
people who actually study the subject use as support for evolutionary
theory, and how do you propose to test it using the tools of science?
> And it remains a lie when they call it scientific
> fact rather than honestly calling it speculations they have faith
> in.
>
In what way is forming conclusions from the evidence lying?
Lying is making statements which are known to be false with the intent
to deceive. I can provide you with several examples from creationist
web sites in which it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the authors
are lying.
What evidence can *you* provide that any evolutionary biologist has
lied about anything?
RF
> :
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:52:49 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
>
> : enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> :
So perhaps you can identify *any* explanation from *any* branch of
*any* science which incorporates divine intervention.
Science does not address the issue of whether or not God exists, or
has any role in the universe. It investigates phenomena which can be
observed and measured under the assumption of naturalism, and any
explanations offered by science are subject to revision or rejection
if that is what the evidence demands.
If you want to reject science, fine. That's up to you. However, I'm
sure that the irony that you are using a device made possible by the
findings of science to communicate your rejection of science is not
lost on others.
RF
>
> :
> : And until you do....
wf3h
> On 14 Nov 2008 18:53:14 GMT, Garamond Lethe
> : Then why are most of these authors going on and on about DNA evidence?
>
> Fossil and DNA and homology all more logically point to
> creation by God than of the stories of fish evolving into men
> over generations.
gee. god did it could explain why my tire is flat, why hot tea goes
cold, etc. etc. it's got a 2000 year history of failure. that's why
scientists don't use it.
creationists pretend creationism is a new idea. it's the oldest, most
used failed idea in history.
John Harshman
If you would read some of the literature, you would see that there are
reasons for believing one thing instead of another. This is not
arbitrary. And of course a population of mammals can't produce birds.
Birds are archosaurs, not synapsids. And if you want live, experimental
proof that birds and mammals can be produced from common ancestors while
you watch, that's just silly. You believe in lots of things that for one
reason or another you can't actually see. And rightly so, because
indirect evidence is just as good and just as inescapable. If whales
aren't related to hippos, why do they share all those SINE insertions?
And so on.
Mark Isaak
>> But you can't come up with anything better [than an evolution
>> scenario].
>
> And that's their version of "science". The "best"
> God-rejecting story they could come up with. Case closed.
I don't know if you have been reading your own posts, Gabriel, but person
rejecting God is you. You are the one who equates religion with
unreliability and probable falsehood, and you are the one saying that the
evidence from the world itself cannot be taken as evidence of God's work;
in fact, we must deny it.
And if anyone besides you in this thread is denying God, I have missed
it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Matt Silberstein
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
<vlmii45p6cs9vj5oc...@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
> And that's their version of "science". The "best"
>God-rejecting story they could come up with. Case closed.
When you want to know the weather tomorrow do you reject God and look
to a weather report? Or do you look to the Bible and see if the people
are worshiping God properly?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Ye Old One
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In the meantime, they have no observations, no
>tests/verifications that populations of mammals can produce, over
>generations, birds.
Well of course not. However, we can trace mammals and birds back to a
common ancestor.
>Just beliefs that it happens - that's not
>science, but a religion.
Science works with facts. The fossil record contains a lot of facts.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In the meantime, please provide a single observation of
>the fish to man version of evolution. For example, populations of
>rats producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no
>longer rats at all.
That would require a look into the future.
However, what we do have is the fossil record which shows the
evolution that led to modern rats.
> Until they provide such an observation and/or
>test/verification, then what they have faith in remains a belief,
>nothing more. And it remains a lie when they call it scientific
>fact rather than honestly calling it speculations they have faith
>in.
You really do need to learn some science.
--
Bob.
John Baker
Of course not. Why would there be? Science doesn't claim that such a
thing would or could happen. But brain-dead creationist imbeciles
certainly lie through their teeth about what science *does* claim.
>Just beliefs that it happens -
I can assure you, Gabe, that no scientist believes mammals will ever
evolve into birds.
But we have a great deal of very good evidence that a certain group of
archosaurs did precisely that.
>that's not
>science, but a religion.
You wouldn't know science if it kicked you in the nuts. In fact, you
wouldn't know *religion* if it kicked you in the nuts, because the
lunatic bullshit you believe isn't religion.
A *religious* person can accept that evolution is fact and still find
room for his god. He merely presumes that evolution is the tool God
uses to do his work. You, on the other hand, must deny demonstrable
fact to protect your irrational beliefs. If it contradicts what your
Bible claims, then it *must* be false, despite the evidence. That
isn't faith, Gabe. It's madness.
Fact is, you, and others like you, don't worship a god at all. You
worship a book.
>
> [rest of beliefs deleted]
John Baker
wrote:
>On Nov 21, 9:41 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not really. A prostitute can fall in love, but a creationist will
*never* understand science.
Gabriel
<s...@sig.below> wrote:
: On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:54:01 -0500, Gabriel wrote:
: > On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:13:03 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
: > <s...@sig.below> wrote:
: >
: > : Gabriel wrote:
: > : > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT), Baron Bodissey
: > : > <mct...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : On Oct 14, 6:32=A0pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : <snip extremely annoying posting style>
: > : > : >
: > : > :=20
: > : > : Does it ever bother you that you have to lie about evolution and
: > : > : misrepresent what it says in order to attack it? That should tell you
: > : > : something.
: > : >
: > : > You're free to point out exactly how I misrepresented it
: > : > rather than just saying I did.
: > :
: > :
: > : I hope I have the same freedom.
: >
: > You do,
:
:
: Great! Thanks!
:
:
:
: > unfortunately, some items in your list have
: > nothing to do with how the fish to man version of evolution is
: > misrepresented.
:
:
: Not that I can see. All the points pertain to your lies and
: obfuscations about evolution.
Show in detail how every one of them does. I've shown you
how some of them do not.
:
:
:
: > : 1. The claim that science has proven that evolution (at least on a
: > : macro scale) does not happen is a flat out lie.
: >
: > It's repeatedly observable, testable and verifiable that,
: > for example, populations of rats only *ever* produce, over
: > generations, more rats. That's science proving the fish to man
: > *version* of evolution is false.
:
:
: Wrong. Suppose I flipped a coin ten times and it came up heads
: every time. Would that prove that this coin would only land heads
: up?
You can see that a coin has heads and tails before it was
ever flipped. Yet again, a false analogy. Now, if you want to
claim it's sometimes possible to flip a coin that has a head and
a tail, and when you check it neither a head or a tail shows up,
that's an analogy to your fish to man version of evolution:
claiming something happens that has never been shown to happen.
If every single time of millions of known reproductions
that rats only ever produced rats, does this prove that's all
they produce? Until anyone ever shows otherwise, it certainly
does. But of course they want to ignore billions of similar test
cases that disprove their fish to man version of evolution so
that they can continue to teach that lie as being fact.
: Suppose it was a hundred times? Or a thousand? Is there some
: point where it became proven that the coin could not land tails up?
:
: Of course with evolution, the changes from one generation are
: rarely great enough for the new generation to be considered a new
: species. So citing that as evidence against evolution is quite
: disingenuous.
:
:
:
: > : 2. When people mention fossils, you switch to "dead bones", which
: > : is not the same thing.
: >
: > Dead bones are one type of fossil. When people mention
: > fossils to "prove" humans evolved from fish, they are referring
: > to dead bones of animals and how they are supposedly
: > "intermediate forms" and/or how the one animal is the predecessor
: > of the next.
:
:
: Again, "dead bones" are not the only type of fossil.
They don't have to be the "only type". The point, which
you missed, is that's exactly the type they use to try selling
their belief that animal-A evolved into animal-B.
: Neither are
: they the only type used as evidence of evolution. Shells, hair,
: occasionally soft tissue, nails, scales, feathers, coprolites and
: probly lots of other stuff I haven't thought of can also become
: fossils. These all provide evidence as to what organisms lived in
: the past.
:
: I suspect that the reason you change "fossil" to "dead bones" is
: because it sounds less scientific and more Dr Frankensteinish. Am I
: wrong?
:
:
:
: > : 3. Your constant refrain that evolution is not testable nor
: > : observable when in fact, it is both.
: >
: > You're claiming it's *observable?
:
:
: Of course.
Now you're lying. At least some evolutionists are honest
enough to admit it's impossible to observe it.
:
:
:
: > Other evolutionists are
: > at least honest enough to point out it's not.
:
:
: Not at all. They are honest, but they realize that you are not. You
: are trying to hijack the word "observation" to mean "observed the
: process in real time". They point out that wrt evolution, that's
: often not possible. The process of speciation usually takes tens of
: thousands of years. That's what they are pointing out. If you think
: I am wrong about this, then cite a post and ask the poster to
: clarify. You'll find that he will say what I just did.
:
:
:
: > So then, you're
: > free to show an observation of your fish to man version of
: > evolution, not mosquitoes producing more mosquitoes, but
: > mosquitoes producing, over generations, animals that are clearly
: > no longer mosquitoes at all. According to some evolutionists, its
: > impossible to observe given the claimed timetable - according to
: > you it is observable. I await you showing said observations of
: > that version of evolution.
:
:
: No problem. I've mentioned whale evolution in other posts to you.
: Go read the article at Wikipedia:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution
I didn't say show me what leads you to your faith in the
belief that it's possible. Show observations and/or
tests/verifications of populations of whales producing, over
generations, animals that are clearly no longer whales at all. Or
show observations and/or tests/verification of populations of
animals that are clearly not whales producing, over generations,
animals that are now whales.
Until you do, it's just a belief you have faith in,
nothing more. And those beliefs have long been refuted anyway.
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
www.icr.org
www.creationontheweb.com
If you cannot even be honest about the fact that the fish
to man version of evolution is not even observable, it's clear
you have no intent on being honest when even talking about it.
Until you back up that lie that it's observable with an actual
observation of it happening, not reasons why you have the
*BELIEF* that it does, I leave you to continue believing you
evolved from fish.
:
: Note pakicetids are ancestors of whales. I think you'll have to
: agree that a whale is "clearly not a pakicetid". And note the
: evidence linking them to modern whales:
:
: "They have been linked to whales by their ears: the structure of
: the auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only. The
: shape of the ear region in Pakicetus is highly unusual and only
: resembles the skulls of whales. The feature is diagnostic for
: cetaceans and is found in no other species."
:
: That's an observation. I hope you are happy.
:
:
:
: > : 4. Your rather bizarre characterization of evolution as requiring
: > : fish to learn to breathe air and to read and write. This one is
: > : pretty good. If it were just a little better, I'd nominate you for
: > : a Backspace award.
: >
: > Now you're straying into opinionated attacks.
:
:
: Huh? Are you referring to my suggestion that you are almost worthy
: of a Backspace award? If you don't want to be ridiculed, I suggest
: you don't write such ridiculous nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you
: know that no one claims that a fish "learned" to breathe air, etc.
: You just write that nonsense to try to make evolution look stupid.
: It's not my fault that that backfires on you.
:
:
:
: > This is
: > exactly what the fish to man version of evolution claims: that
: > fish, over generations, somehow started breathing air,
:
:
: There are species of lungfish alive today. If you are not educated
: enough to be aware of that, perhaps you ought to do some learning
: before you try to tell scientists that they've got it all wrong.
:
:
:
: > somehow started walking upright on two lets,
:
:
: There are walking catfish alive today as well. Also, Tiktaalik is
: an important piece of evidence supporting evolution. Scientists
: predicted they would find Tiktaalik fossils in a certain location,
: in part based on evolutionary theory, and they did. I suggest you
: read up on it:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
:
:
:
: > and someone started learning
: > to read and write every language known to man. If that image
: > bothers you, it should, because it's exactly the sort of absurd
: > thing they believe in.
:
:
: "Someone" did not learn every language. Several someones did. Is
: this something you really want to dispute? What alternative is
: there? That some human languages were never learned by anybody?
:
:
:
: > : 5. Your frequent referral of evolution as "molecules to man"
: > : (whatever that means - do you think we are not made of molecules?)
: > : or as "fish to man".
: >
: > They claim molecules were the first life form
:
:
: Huh? Can you cite a scientist that claims that molecules were the
: first life form?
:
:
:
: > of which
: > all subsequent life evolved. This is not true? What was the first
: > life form then? Fish?
:
:
: Of course not. Fish came much later. The first life form would have
: been some sort of microorganism.
:
: Further, the more important point here is that man is not the end
: target of evolution. We are one of the results of evolution, but so
: are elephants and lobsters and tulips and various bacteria, etc.
: Describing evolution as "<anything> to man" is about as accurate as
: describing the US highway system as "<anywhere> to New York".
:
:
:
: > : 6. Your claim that programmers (a group which includes me) write
: > : programs in a way that involves a nested hierarchy.
: >
: > This has nothing to do with how I supposedly
: > "misrepresented" the fish to man version of evolution.
:
:
: You tried to refute the nested hierarchy of life by claiming that
: programmers write programs using a nested hierarchy. The nested
: hierarchy is one of the most important evidences that supports the
: theory of evolution, so this very much is on topic.
Gregory A Greenman
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:52:05 -0600, Gregory A Greenman
> <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> : On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:54:01 -0500, Gabriel wrote:
> : > On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:13:03 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
> : > <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> : >
> : > : Gabriel wrote:
> : > : > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT), Baron Bodissey
> : > : > <mct...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : On Oct 14, 6:32=A0pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : <snip extremely annoying posting style>
> : > : > : >
> : > : > :=20
> : > : > : Does it ever bother you that you have to lie about evolution and
> : > : > : misrepresent what it says in order to attack it? That should tell you
> : > : > : something.
> : > : >
> : > : > You're free to point out exactly how I misrepresented it
> : > : > rather than just saying I did.
> : > :
> :
> : > nothing to do with how the fish to man version of evolution is
> : > misrepresented.
> :
> :
> : Not that I can see. All the points pertain to your lies and
> : obfuscations about evolution.
>
> Show in detail how every one of them does. I've shown you
> how some of them do not.
> : > : 1. The claim that science has proven that evolution (at least on a
> : > : macro scale) does not happen is a flat out lie.
> : >
> : > It's repeatedly observable, testable and verifiable that,
> : > for example, populations of rats only *ever* produce, over
> : > generations, more rats. That's science proving the fish to man
> : > *version* of evolution is false.
> :
> :
> : Wrong. Suppose I flipped a coin ten times and it came up heads
> : every time. Would that prove that this coin would only land heads
> : up?
>
> You can see that a coin has heads and tails before it was
> ever flipped.
So? I can also see that it has an edge. Yet, assuming it lands on a
flat level surface, it will never come up edges.
> Yet again, a false analogy. Now, if you want to
> claim it's sometimes possible to flip a coin that has a head and
> a tail, and when you check it neither a head or a tail shows up,
> that's an analogy to your fish to man version of evolution:
> claiming something happens that has never been shown to happen.
So, does a coin repeatedly coming up heads ever prove that it
cannot come up tails?
> If every single time of millions of known reproductions
> that rats only ever produced rats, does this prove that's all
> they produce? Until anyone ever shows otherwise, it certainly
> does. But of course they want to ignore billions of similar test
> cases that disprove their fish to man version of evolution so
> that they can continue to teach that lie as being fact.
Your second sentence here contradicts itself. If this alleged fact
of yours did prove that populations do not evolve, then it would
not be possible for anyone to show otherwise. Of course, people
have shown otherwise. Many cases of evolution are well documented.
Whales and horses, for example.
> : Suppose it was a hundred times? Or a thousand? Is there some
> : point where it became proven that the coin could not land tails up?
> :
> : Of course with evolution, the changes from one generation are
> : rarely great enough for the new generation to be considered a new
> : species. So citing that as evidence against evolution is quite
> : disingenuous.
Should I take it that you agree with this paragraph?
> : > : 2. When people mention fossils, you switch to "dead bones", which
> : > : is not the same thing.
> : >
> : > Dead bones are one type of fossil. When people mention
> : > fossils to "prove" humans evolved from fish, they are referring
> : > to dead bones of animals and how they are supposedly
> : > "intermediate forms" and/or how the one animal is the predecessor
> : > of the next.
> :
> :
> : Again, "dead bones" are not the only type of fossil.
>
> They don't have to be the "only type". The point, which
> you missed, is that's exactly the type they use to try selling
> their belief that animal-A evolved into animal-B.
I missed no point. Other types of fossils also provide evidence of
evolution. Fossilized Archaeopteryx feathers, for example.
> : Neither are
> : they the only type used as evidence of evolution. Shells, hair,
> : occasionally soft tissue, nails, scales, feathers, coprolites and
> : probly lots of other stuff I haven't thought of can also become
> : fossils. These all provide evidence as to what organisms lived in
> : the past.
> :
> : I suspect that the reason you change "fossil" to "dead bones" is
> : because it sounds less scientific and more Dr Frankensteinish. Am I
> : wrong?
Should I take it that I am not wrong, then?
> : > : 3. Your constant refrain that evolution is not testable nor
> : > : observable when in fact, it is both.
> : >
> : > You're claiming it's *observable?
> :
> :
> : Of course.
>
> Now you're lying.
Not at all. Observations are evidence. There are many observations
that support evolution. There are also many tests that have been
performed that the theory has passed. That you don't like these
facts doesn't mean they go away.
> At least some evolutionists are honest
> enough to admit it's impossible to observe it.
Did you read where I pointed out this is untrue in my very next
paragraph? It's right there, starting with "Not at all." Just look
down a bit.
> : > Other evolutionists are
> : > at least honest enough to point out it's not.
> :
> :
> : Not at all. They are honest, but they realize that you are not. You
> : are trying to hijack the word "observation" to mean "observed the
> : process in real time". They point out that wrt evolution, that's
> : often not possible. The process of speciation usually takes tens of
> : thousands of years. That's what they are pointing out. If you think
> : I am wrong about this, then cite a post and ask the poster to
> : clarify. You'll find that he will say what I just did.
I guess I should just assume that you either didn't bother to read
this, or failed to comprehend it.
> : > So then, you're
> : > free to show an observation of your fish to man version of
> : > evolution, not mosquitoes producing more mosquitoes, but
> : > mosquitoes producing, over generations, animals that are clearly
> : > no longer mosquitoes at all. According to some evolutionists, its
> : > impossible to observe given the claimed timetable - according to
> : > you it is observable. I await you showing said observations of
> : > that version of evolution.
> :
> :
> : No problem. I've mentioned whale evolution in other posts to you.
> : Go read the article at Wikipedia:
> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution
>
> I didn't say show me what leads you to your faith in the
> belief that it's possible.
I don't have faith. I rely on evidence.
> Show observations and/or
> tests/verifications of populations of whales producing, over
> generations, animals that are clearly no longer whales at all.
Yep. That's what this is.
Fossils of Pakicetids were observed in Pakistan. Skeletons of
modern whales have also been observed. The morphological
similarities have been observed. The fact that Pakicetids are found
in 50+ million year old strata has been observed. The fact that
modern whale fossils are not found in strata that old has been
observed. The fact that Pakicetids are no longer found has been
observed. The fact that modern whales do currently exist has been
observed. Fossils of several intermediaries, in more recent strata
have been observed.
These are all observations. They are all facts. They are all
evidence of evolution. None of these observations go away just
because of your hand waving. None of these observations go away
because they offend your religious beliefs. None of these
observations go away because you don't like them. None of these
observations go away because you want to feel special.
> Or
> show observations and/or tests/verification of populations of
> animals that are clearly not whales producing, over generations,
> animals that are now whales.
>
> Until you do, it's just a belief you have faith in,
> nothing more. And those beliefs have long been refuted anyway.
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
> www.icr.org
> www.creationontheweb.com
>
> If you cannot even be honest
Do you even know what "honest" means? If you do, why do you
continue to cite answersingenesis and icr, given that they feel
free to lie about the evidence?
> about the fact that the fish
> to man version of evolution is not even observable, it's clear
> you have no intent on being honest when even talking about it.
> Until you back up that lie that it's observable with an actual
> observation of it happening, not reasons why you have the
> *BELIEF* that it does, I leave you to continue believing you
> evolved from fish.
>
>
> :
> : Note pakicetids are ancestors of whales. I think you'll have to
> : agree that a whale is "clearly not a pakicetid". And note the
> : evidence linking them to modern whales:
> :
> : "They have been linked to whales by their ears: the structure of
> : the auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only. The
> : shape of the ear region in Pakicetus is highly unusual and only
> : resembles the skulls of whales. The feature is diagnostic for
> : cetaceans and is found in no other species."
> :
> : That's an observation. I hope you are happy.
You seem to have missed this observation in your response.
> : > : 4. Your rather bizarre characterization of evolution as requiring
> : > : fish to learn to breathe air and to read and write. This one is
> : > : pretty good. If it were just a little better, I'd nominate you for
> : > : a Backspace award.
> : >
> : > Now you're straying into opinionated attacks.
> :
> :
> : Huh? Are you referring to my suggestion that you are almost worthy
> : of a Backspace award? If you don't want to be ridiculed, I suggest
> : you don't write such ridiculous nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you
> : know that no one claims that a fish "learned" to breathe air, etc.
> : You just write that nonsense to try to make evolution look stupid.
> : It's not my fault that that backfires on you.
Should I take it that you concede this point?
> : > This is
> : > exactly what the fish to man version of evolution claims: that
> : > fish, over generations, somehow started breathing air,
> :
> :
> : There are species of lungfish alive today. If you are not educated
> : enough to be aware of that, perhaps you ought to do some learning
> : before you try to tell scientists that they've got it all wrong.
Should I take it that you concede this point?
> : > somehow started walking upright on two lets,
> :
> :
> : There are walking catfish alive today as well. Also, Tiktaalik is
> : an important piece of evidence supporting evolution. Scientists
> : predicted they would find Tiktaalik fossils in a certain location,
> : in part based on evolutionary theory, and they did. I suggest you
> : read up on it:
> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Should I take it that you concede this point?
> : > and someone started learning
> : > to read and write every language known to man. If that image
> : > bothers you, it should, because it's exactly the sort of absurd
> : > thing they believe in.
> :
> :
> : "Someone" did not learn every language. Several someones did. Is
> : this something you really want to dispute? What alternative is
> : there? That some human languages were never learned by anybody?
Should I take it that you concede this point?
> : > : 5. Your frequent referral of evolution as "molecules to man"
> : > : (whatever that means - do you think we are not made of molecules?)
> : > : or as "fish to man".
> : >
> : > They claim molecules were the first life form
> :
> :
> : Huh? Can you cite a scientist that claims that molecules were the
> : first life form?
Should I take it that you concede this point?
> : > of which
> : > all subsequent life evolved. This is not true? What was the first
> : > life form then? Fish?
> :
> :
> : Of course not. Fish came much later. The first life form would have
> : been some sort of microorganism.
> :
> : Further, the more important point here is that man is not the end
> : target of evolution. We are one of the results of evolution, but so
> : are elephants and lobsters and tulips and various bacteria, etc.
> : Describing evolution as "<anything> to man" is about as accurate as
> : describing the US highway system as "<anywhere> to New York".
Should I take it that you concede this point?
> : > : 6. Your claim that programmers (a group which includes me) write
> : > : programs in a way that involves a nested hierarchy.
> : >
> : > This has nothing to do with how I supposedly
> : > "misrepresented" the fish to man version of evolution.
> :
> :
> : You tried to refute the nested hierarchy of life by claiming that
> : programmers write programs using a nested hierarchy. The nested
> : hierarchy is one of the most important evidences that supports the
> : theory of evolution, so this very much is on topic.
Should I take it that you concede this point?
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Gabriel
wrote:
: On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, Gabriel
: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
:
: >In the meantime, they have no observations, no
: >tests/verifications that populations of mammals can produce, over
: >generations, birds.
:
: Well of course not. However, we can trace mammals and birds back to a
: common ancestor.
No, the "tracing" is a belief that is unobservable AND
untestable/unverifiable - only to be taken on faith.
:
: >Just beliefs that it happens - that's not
: >science, but a religion.
:
: Science works with facts. The fossil record contains a lot of facts.
The only fact is they have remains of individual
creatures that once lived. They tacked onto it a ton of beliefs
about their fish to man version of evolutoin as to what the
creature supposedly evolved from or to, assuming their beliefs
are even true about fish to man evolution - all beliefs that are
not observable AND not testable/verifiable.
wf3h
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:02:58 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
>
> : On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, Gabriel
> :
> : >In the meantime, they have no observations, no
> : >tests/verifications that populations of mammals can produce, over
> : >generations, birds.
> :
> : Well of course not. However, we can trace mammals and birds back to a
> : common ancestor.
>
> No, the "tracing" is a belief that is unobservable AND
> untestable/unverifiable - only to be taken on faith.
>
> :
> : >Just beliefs that it happens - that's not
> : >science, but a religion.
> :
> : Science works with facts. The fossil record contains a lot of facts.
>
> The only fact is they have remains of individual
> creatures that once lived. They tacked onto it a ton of beliefs
> about their fish to man version of evolutoin as to what the
> creature supposedly evolved from or to, assuming their beliefs
> are even true about fish to man evolution - all beliefs that are
> not observable AND not testable/verifiable.
no one person has ever seen a person be born, live to 90 and die. so i
guess it doesn't happen
such is creationist logic
where do creationists get this stuff? is there, like, a 'creation
central' politburo where they can go for the latest distortions of how
scientists work?
Nomen Publicus
They know the order in which the rock layers were deposited. From physics
and chemistry they know that some testable effects can give the approximate
time since deposition. From measurements of the rate of current day
deposition of materials a check can be made of the estimated age by
measuring the thickness of layers. By matching both rock layers and
contained fossils they learn that the Atlantic is a new feature and by
measuring the rate at which it is growing they know when the east coast of
north america was up against the west coast of northern europe, giving a
third estimate of the age of rocks.
It is all consistent.
I could go on, but it is all better explained in almost any book on geology
for beginners available in good bookshops everywhere.
--
Gustaf Lindborg: The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail
Gabriel
<zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
Actually it's not - they continue to find things
deposited in layers that they shouldn't be because they "claimed"
it hadn't evolved into existence yet.
Not to mention the order the fossils supposedly showing
up is not proof in the least that they evolved from each other.
Just yet another belief that it does - a belief that becomes a
lie when they claim this is proof of it.
Not to mention the numerous assumptions in their dating
methods, which make them call things 5 million years old one day,
then 65 million years old next time you turn around. Not to
mention the complete lack of intermediate forms which debunks
their beliefs. But that's irrelevant to the undeniable fact that
their beliefs are unobservable, _and_ untestable, _and_
unverifiable - hence not only are they not fact, they're not even
science. But people can certainly have faith in those beliefs,
which is all they have.
:
: I could go on, but it is all better explained in almost any book on geology
: for beginners available in good bookshops everywhere.
They can't get past the fact that they only have beliefs
- they need only show an actual observation and/OR
test/verification, not just mere reasons why they have faith in
their beliefs.
Thanks for posting.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:07:27 -0000, Nomen Publicus
>
> : Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : > On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:02:58 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>: > wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, Gabriel
They do?
I'm a palaeontologist. I know of no such instances and I suggest that
I know the literature rather better than you do.
So either produce a reliable citation, or admit that you are wrong.
Which is it to be?
>
> Not to mention the order the fossils supposedly showing
> up is not proof in the least that they evolved from each other.
Quite so, but then science does not offer proof - something which has
been explained to you ad nauseam.
On the other hand, science seeks explanation which can be tested by
the acquisition of data. The best and only explanation in biology for
the pattern of distribution of fossils in the geological record is
that they record a pattern of evolutionary change. This explanation
makes predictions which can and have been tested - contrary to your
assertion that it can't be tested.
If you have a better explanation which can be tested using the tools
of science feel free to offer it.
> Just yet another belief that it does - a belief that becomes a
> lie when they claim this is proof of it.
>
The only person lying here is you.
> Not to mention the numerous assumptions in their dating
> methods, which make them call things 5 million years old one day,
> then 65 million years old next time you turn around.
I've never come across any such radical revision in the dating of any
fossil, and I'm a palaeontologist. I suggest that you either produce a
citation or series of citations which supports this assertion, or you
are revealed yet again as a liar.
> Not to
> mention the complete lack of intermediate forms which debunks
> their beliefs.
I've given you the example of Tiktaalik, whose morphology, age and
geographical location were predicted by evolutionary theory. You
simply ignore it and repeat the assertion that no such form exists.
This is called lying.
> But that's irrelevant to the undeniable fact that
> their beliefs are unobservable, _and_ untestable, _and_
> unverifiable - hence not only are they not fact, they're not even
> science.
You're lying again. I've given you the clear example of Tiktaalik
several times, but you ignore it.
> But people can certainly have faith in those beliefs,
> which is all they have.
It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of following the evidence
where it leads. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no
interest whatsoever in the evidence, and continue to claim that no
evidence exists even after it has been presented to you over and over
again.
I call this lying.
What do you call it?
>
> :
> : I could go on, but it is all better explained in almost any book on geology
> : for beginners available in good bookshops everywhere.
>
> They can't get past the fact that they only have beliefs
> - they need only show an actual observation and/OR
> test/verification, not just mere reasons why they have faith in
> their beliefs.
I've given you some of the evidence over and over again, and you
ignore it. I've offered to post a list of recommendations for sources
from which you can learn about the evidence - this is after all a big
area of science, and there is a vast amount of evidence to consider.
You refuse point-blank to learn, and continue to assert that no
evidence exists.
What do you think it tells us about the validity of your beliefs that
you can maintain them only by ignorance and lies?
RF
>
> Thanks for posting.
Ye Old One
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:02:58 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>: On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, Gabriel
>: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>:
>: >In the meantime, they have no observations, no
>: >tests/verifications that populations of mammals can produce, over
>: >generations, birds.
>:
>: Well of course not. However, we can trace mammals and birds back to a
>: common ancestor.
>
> No, the "tracing" is a belief that is unobservable AND
>untestable/unverifiable - only to be taken on faith.
If, and I say *IF*, we only had the fossil record to go by then maybe
I would agree with you. However, the fossil record is not all that we
have. There are many other avenues, though the best is comparative
genetics - with that we can say (without fear of contradiction) that
we can trace mammals and birds back to a common ancestor.
>
>:
>: >Just beliefs that it happens - that's not
>: >science, but a religion.
>:
>: Science works with facts. The fossil record contains a lot of facts.
>
> The only fact is they have remains of individual
>creatures that once lived. They tacked onto it a ton of beliefs
>about their fish to man version of evolutoin as to what the
>creature supposedly evolved from or to, assuming their beliefs
>are even true about fish to man evolution - all beliefs that are
>not observable AND not testable/verifiable.
The point is that the process IS observable - through the fossil
record. It is testable AND verifiable through genetics.
And, of course, the real problem you have is that you have no
alternative to offer.
--
Bob.
wf3h
> Not to mention the order the fossils supposedly showing
> up is not proof in the least that they evolved from each other.
> Just yet another belief that it does - a belief that becomes a
> lie when they claim this is proof of it.
creationism is the theology of the movie 'a guide for the married
man'. one of the guys cheating on his wife tells another guy that, if
your wife catches you in bed with another woman, deny, deny deny
>
> Not to mention the numerous assumptions in their dating
> methods, which make them call things 5 million years old one day,
> then 65 million years old next time you turn around. Not to
> mention the complete lack of intermediate forms which debunks
> their beliefs. But that's irrelevant to the undeniable fact that
> their beliefs are unobservable, _and_ untestable, _and_
> unverifiable - hence not only are they not fact, they're not even
> science. But people can certainly have faith in those beliefs,
> which is all they have.
and how does gabby know this?
why...he read it in a church bulletin
Ye Old One
Care to provide a reference to an example?
>
> Not to mention the order the fossils supposedly showing
>up is not proof in the least that they evolved from each other.
If you have a succession of fossils through time, where you can see
the gradual change of features, then there is your proof.
>Just yet another belief that it does - a belief that becomes a
>lie when they claim this is proof of it.
>
> Not to mention the numerous assumptions in their dating
>methods, which make them call things 5 million years old one day,
>then 65 million years old next time you turn around.
Care to provide an example?
> Not to
>mention the complete lack of intermediate forms which debunks
>their beliefs.
Only a real idiot tries to deny the many transitional fossils. Are you
an idiot?
> But that's irrelevant to the undeniable fact that
>their beliefs are unobservable, _and_ untestable, _and_
>unverifiable - hence not only are they not fact, they're not even
>science.
I will call you a liar at this point. I do so because many people have
explained just how wrong that claim is, but you still go on making it.
>But people can certainly have faith in those beliefs,
>which is all they have.
>
>:
>: I could go on, but it is all better explained in almost any book on geology
>: for beginners available in good bookshops everywhere.
>
> They can't get past the fact that they only have beliefs
>- they need only show an actual observation and/OR
>test/verification, not just mere reasons why they have faith in
>their beliefs.
You have been provided with all that. Why do you now lie?
>
> Thanks for posting.
--
Bob.
Gabriel
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
: On Nov 22, 2:41 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:47 -0800 (PST), wf3h
: >
: > <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
:
: > :
: > : it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
: > : student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
: > : MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
: > : of evolution
: >
: > Populations of bacteria producing, over generations, more
: > bacteria that might be different but still bacteria is not the
: > fish to man version of evolution you believe in - it's adaptation
: > that we already know takes place.
:
: Well, the scientists who actually *study* such things will tell you
: that it's evolution.
Yes, adaptation. It's not a sample of the imagined fish
to man _version_ of evolution until they show populations of
bacteria producing organisms, over generations, that are clearly
no longer bacteria at all.
: Furthermore, they will tell you that it's the
: only scientific explanation - i.e. an explanation which can be tested
: using the tools of science - for man's origins.
No, it's a belief on man's origins - a belief created by
what they believe things mean to them - others come up with very
different beliefs when looking at the exact same evidence. Using
their logic, that makes all beliefs factual, which of course only
shows how dishonest they are in passing their beliefs off as
fact.
: It is an explanation
: which has withstood rigourous testing for well over a century, is
: supported by vast amounts of evidence, and which makes predictions
: about what we will find in the biology of existing organisms and the
: fossil record.
:
: What do you know that all those scientists don't?
:
: > Until anyone shows an
: > observation and/or test/verification of populations of bacteria
: > producing, over generations, things that are clearly no longer
: > bacteria at all, or populations of rats producing, over
: > generations, animals that are no longer rats at all, and so on,
: > then what they claim remains an unobservable, untestable,
: > unverifiable belief that they have faith in.
:
: So what is *your* explanation for the evidence from genetics,
: comparative anatomy, biogeography, the fossil record and all the other
: strands which support the conclusion that man's evolutionary ancestry
: can be traced back to fish
Exactly: an "explanation" is not fact, just a belief on
what they have faith might be true. My point exactly. Meanwhile
our explanation is a common designer: God. The evidence logically
supports this even more logically. But it doesn't make belief in
God a fact either. But we're not trying to claim God is a
_scientific_ fact, although if allowed to consider the
possibility of God, the evidence backs it up more logically then
that fish evolved into human beings; that fish started, over
generations, breathing air, started walking upright on two legs,
and started speaking all the languages known to man.
: and, more importantly, how do you propose
: to test it?
No, more importantly, how do you propose to offer an
observation and/OR a test/verification on the fish to man version
of evolution. Evolution fails on that account alone. They haven't
shown any of it yet. Until they do so, not only is it not a fact,
but it's not even science by their own definition of science.
:
: > Welcome to religion.
:
: Forming conclusions from the evidence which can be tested by the
: acquisition of more evidence is not religion.
No, the only thing that can be tested is that others come
to the same beliefs. The actual belief itself is impossible to
test, impossible to verify, and most will admit impossible to
observe. On that reckoning, what they claim is not even science,
let alone "factual": just beliefs. Some evolutionists are honest
enough to admit it's just a theory they believe - those that
aren't will get called on their dishonesty.
In fact, science repeatedly shows observations, tests,
AND verifications that the fish to man version of evolution is
false - for example, that rats will only _ever_ produce more rats
over generations, no matter what differences they see in the rats
themselves: they remain rats. Fruit flies, no matter how many
generations they test, remain fruit flies.
:
:
: RF
Thurisaz the Einherjer
RUN COWARD!
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:34:46 -0800 (PST),
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 22, 2:41 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:47 -0800 (PST), wf3h
> : >: > <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> :
> : > :
> : > : it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
> : > : student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
> : > : MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
> : > : of evolution
> : >
> : > Populations of bacteria producing, over generations, more
> : > bacteria that might be different but still bacteria is not the
> : > fish to man version of evolution you believe in - it's adaptation
> : > that we already know takes place.
> :
> : Well, the scientists who actually *study* such things will tell you
> : that it's evolution.
>
> Yes, adaptation.
Well, the scientists who actually *study* the subject call it
evolution.
What do you know that all those scientists don't?
> It's not a sample of the imagined fish
> to man _version_ of evolution until they show populations of
> bacteria producing organisms, over generations, that are clearly
> no longer bacteria at all.
There is only one "version" of evolution. It's the only scientific
explanation for the fossil record and great swathes of biology. If you
have a better, testable theory feel free to offer it.
>
> : Furthermore, they will tell you that it's the
> : only scientific explanation - i.e. an explanation which can be tested
> : using the tools of science - for man's origins.
>
> No, it's a belief on man's origins - a belief created by
> what they believe things mean to them - others come up with very
> different beliefs when looking at the exact same evidence.
Simply denying the fact does not add weight to your argument. There is
no other scientific explanation for the evidence.
> Using
> their logic, that makes all beliefs factual, which of course only
> shows how dishonest they are in passing their beliefs off as
> fact.
Nobody is claiming that beliefs are fact other than the creationists.
>
> : It is an explanation
> : which has withstood rigourous testing for well over a century, is
> : supported by vast amounts of evidence, and which makes predictions
> : about what we will find in the biology of existing organisms and the
> : fossil record.
> :
> : What do you know that all those scientists don't?
> :
> : > Until anyone shows an
> : > observation and/or test/verification of populations of bacteria
> : > producing, over generations, things that are clearly no longer
> : > bacteria at all, or populations of rats producing, over
> : > generations, animals that are no longer rats at all, and so on,
> : > then what they claim remains an unobservable, untestable,
> : > unverifiable belief that they have faith in.
> :
> : So what is *your* explanation for the evidence from genetics,
> : comparative anatomy, biogeography, the fossil record and all the other
> : strands which support the conclusion that man's evolutionary ancestry
> : can be traced back to fish
>
> Exactly: an "explanation" is not fact, just a belief on
> what they have faith might be true.
It is a fact that evolution happens. It has been observed in nature
and replicated in the lab. Evolutionary theory offers and explanation
of *how* evolution happens, and is the only scientific theory which
explains the evidence.
I've explained this to you several times previously, yet you continue
to repeat the falsehood that belief is presented as fact by
scientists. The only people presenting belief as fact are the
creationists.
> My point exactly.
As it is based on the false assertion that scientists present belief
as fact, it is no more that a transparent falsehood.
> Meanwhile
> our explanation is a common designer: God.
So what observation or measurement could not be explained by "God"?
Scientific hypotheses set constraints on possible outcomes. That's
what makes them testable. Unless you can propose a potential
observation or measurement which could *NOT* be explained by "God did
it", it is not a proposition which can be tested using the tools of
science.
> The evidence logically
> supports this even more logically.
What evidence could show that God did *NOT* do something?
> But it doesn't make belief in
> God a fact either.
Glad to hear that. Science doesn't offer belief as fact either. It
offers provisional explanation for the facts which can be tested using
the tools of science.
> But we're not trying to claim God is a
> _scientific_ fact, although if allowed to consider the
> possibility of God, the evidence backs it up more logically then
> that fish evolved into human beings; that fish started, over
> generations, breathing air, started walking upright on two legs,
> and started speaking all the languages known to man.
What utter nonsense!
IF pink unicorns appeared in Leicester Square dancing the fandango,
you could explain it by "God did it". If a dog gave birth to a cat you
could explain it by "God did it". An "explanation which imposes no
constraints is of no value to science.
>
> : and, more importantly, how do you propose
> : to test it?
>
> No, more importantly, how do you propose to offer an
> observation and/OR a test/verification on the fish to man version
> of evolution.
I've given you the very clear example of Tiktaalik. You ignore it.
> Evolution fails on that account alone.
Your argument fails because this is an unfounded assertion.
If evolutionary theory does not make predictions, how do you explain
the discovery of Tiktaalik?
> They haven't
> shown any of it yet. Until they do so, not only is it not a fact,
> but it's not even science by their own definition of science.
So how do you explain the discovery of Tiktaalik?
>
> :
> : > Welcome to religion.
> :
> : Forming conclusions from the evidence which can be tested by the
> : acquisition of more evidence is not religion.
>
> No, the only thing that can be tested is that others come
> to the same beliefs.
Bullshit.
Explain the discovery of Tiktaalik.
> The actual belief itself is impossible to
> test, impossible to verify, and most will admit impossible to
> observe.
Then explain the discovery of Tiktaalik.
> On that reckoning, what they claim is not even science,
> let alone "factual": just beliefs. Some evolutionists are honest
> enough to admit it's just a theory they believe - those that
> aren't will get called on their dishonesty.
No evolutionary scientist will tell you that evolutionary theory is
anything other than a theory. On the other hand, all evolutionary
scientists will tell you that it's a fact that evolution happens. It
seems that no matter how many times I point this out, you just ignore
it.
>
> In fact, science repeatedly shows observations, tests,
> AND verifications that the fish to man version of evolution is
> false - for example, that rats will only _ever_ produce more rats
> over generations, no matter what differences they see in the rats
> themselves: they remain rats.
....and, as I have explained to you over and over again, this is
exactly what evolutionary theory *PREDICTS*. That's why humans are
still apes, still primates, still mammals, still synapsids, still
tetrapods, still fish, and still craniates and still eukaryotes.
What's the point of posting this if you simply ignore it and continue
to make the same silly assertion? Are you incapable of reading for
comprehension?
RF
> Fruit flies, no matter how many
> generations they test, remain fruit flies.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYKqehRsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=D...
>
> :
> :
> : RF
Gabriel
wrote:
: On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:09:18 -0500, Gabriel
: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:02:58 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
: >wrote:
: >
: >: On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, Gabriel
: >: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
: >:
: >: >In the meantime, they have no observations, no
: >: >tests/verifications that populations of mammals can produce, over
: >: >generations, birds.
: >:
: >: Well of course not. However, we can trace mammals and birds back to a
: >: common ancestor.
: >
: > No, the "tracing" is a belief that is unobservable AND
: >untestable/unverifiable - only to be taken on faith.
:
: If, and I say *IF*, we only had the fossil record to go by then maybe
: I would agree with you. However, the fossil record is not all that we
: have. There are many other avenues, though the best is comparative
: genetics - with that we can say (without fear of contradiction) that
: we can trace mammals and birds back to a common ancestor.
Those avenues point more logically to God. Comparative
genetics: evidence of a common designer, reusing piece of His
design. Oh, but they refuse to consider that possibility, so to
them it *can't* be evidence of that, so their only remaining
belief "wins" by default. That's bad science to say the least.
Homology? Common designer: reusing pieces of His design.
: >
: >:
: >: >Just beliefs that it happens - that's not
: >: >science, but a religion.
: >:
: >: Science works with facts. The fossil record contains a lot of facts.
: >
: > The only fact is they have remains of individual
: >creatures that once lived. They tacked onto it a ton of beliefs
: >about their fish to man version of evolutoin as to what the
: >creature supposedly evolved from or to, assuming their beliefs
: >are even true about fish to man evolution - all beliefs that are
: >not observable AND not testable/verifiable.
:
: The point is that the process IS observable - through the fossil
: record.
Wrong. Observable is showing in real time observations
and/or tests/verification of such a thing actually happening. Not
looking at dead bones and fossils, and saying whatever belief
they ascribe to it is suddenly an observation of said belief.
That's wishful thinking at best, outright dishonesty at worse.
: It is testable AND verifiable through genetics.
No, that's circular reasoning, as they're going on the
assumption that common DNA is proof that they evolved from each
other, and then showing common DNA as if now that proves it yet
again. I'm sure if a banana and a human had similar DNA that they
would have enough common sense to avoid the conclusion that "we
must have evolved from bananas!".
:
: And, of course, the real problem you have is that you have no
: alternative to offer.
Two serious problems. First of all, "no alternative" does
not make the only "believed" alternative truth. That's "Argument
from ignorance" (look it up). Using that logic, the belief that
meat and air creates life would have been dubbed scientific fact
until someone was *willing* to accept an alternative.
Second of all, we do have an alternative: common designer
(of which we believe that common designer is God, but if it makes
them feel better, they can assume its some sort of alien from
another planet, so they can rest their heads at night in
unaccountable bliss). But origin "scientists" **refuse** to
consider the possibility of God. Ironic, since all the evidence
they hold so dear points many times more logically to God and Him
doing everything He said He did.
Creation
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
Fossils
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
Age/Dating methods
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
wf3h
>
> Those avenues point more logically to God.
how does an idea that says 'there are no natural processes, only
magic, involved in the formation of species' tell us that god is a god
of order and law?
that's an idiotic creationist contradiction
Comparative
> genetics: evidence of a common designer, reusing piece of His
> design.
gee...so god's lazy and inefficient he has to 'reuse' things because
he's lazy. you guys have some god.
Oh, but they refuse to consider that possibility, so to
> them it *can't* be evidence of that, so their only remaining
> belief "wins" by default. That's bad science to say the least.
> Homology? Common designer: reusing pieces of His design.
how? how do you know this? if every animal was radically different
you'd be able to explain THAT by design as well. so design is useless.
>
> Wrong. Observable is showing in real time observations
> and/or tests/verification of such a thing actually happening. \\
and how do you know this? not a single scientist anywhere accepts this
as a definition of science. so you're erecting a strawman then saying
science isnt science because you have an arbitrary view of science
hell, i can say the bible doesn't exist because i didn't write it. and
i know that's true because i said it.
>
> : It is testable AND verifiable through genetics.
>
> No, that's circular reasoning, as they're going on the
> assumption that common DNA is proof that they evolved from each
> other, and then showing common DNA as if now that proves it yet
> again. I'm sure if a banana and a human had similar DNA that they
> would have enough common sense to avoid the conclusion that "we
> must have evolved from bananas!".
your view of god destroys the idea of god. god, it seems, is a
magician pulling species out of a hat.
>
> :
> : And, of course, the real problem you have is that you have no
> : alternative to offer.
>
> Two serious problems. First of all, "no alternative" does
> not make the only "believed" alternative truth. That's "Argument
> from ignorance" (look it up). Using that logic, the belief that
> meat and air creates life would have been dubbed scientific fact
> until someone was *willing* to accept an alternative.
>
> Second of all, we do have an alternative: common designer
> (of which we believe that common designer is God, but if it makes
> them feel better, they can assume its some sort of alien from
> another planet, so they can rest their heads at night in
> unaccountable bliss). But origin "scientists" **refuse** to
> consider the possibility of God. Ironic, since all the evidence
> they hold so dear points many times more logically to God and Him
> doing everything He said He did.
there is no such thing as a 'common designer' except evolution. unless
you can tell us HOW this designer works, it's not science
and it's hardly the case that scientist 'refuse' (sic) to consider
god. you creationists tried to use creationism to explain everything
from earthquakes to the weather
you've ALWAYS been wrong.
does it ever occur to you to dump a wrong idea?
no...apparently not
Ye Old One
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:40:09 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>: On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:09:18 -0500, Gabriel
>: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>:
>: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:02:58 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>: >wrote:
>: >
>: >: On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, Gabriel
>: >: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>: >:
>: >: >In the meantime, they have no observations, no
>: >: >tests/verifications that populations of mammals can produce, over
>: >: >generations, birds.
>: >:
>: >: Well of course not. However, we can trace mammals and birds back to a
>: >: common ancestor.
>: >
>: > No, the "tracing" is a belief that is unobservable AND
>: >untestable/unverifiable - only to be taken on faith.
>:
>: If, and I say *IF*, we only had the fossil record to go by then maybe
>: I would agree with you. However, the fossil record is not all that we
>: have. There are many other avenues, though the best is comparative
>: genetics - with that we can say (without fear of contradiction) that
>: we can trace mammals and birds back to a common ancestor.
>
> Those avenues point more logically to God.
No they do not. All gods, including yours, were invented by man.
>Comparative
>genetics: evidence of a common designer,
There is no evidence for a designer, there is a mountain of evidence
for evolution.
> reusing piece of His
>design. Oh, but they refuse to consider that possibility, so to
>them it *can't* be evidence of that,
If it was design it is rather crap design.
> so their only remaining
>belief "wins" by default. That's bad science to say the least.
>Homology? Common designer: reusing pieces of His design.
No evidence of design. No evidence of a designer. No evidence for the
need for a designer.
>
>: >
>: >:
>: >: >Just beliefs that it happens - that's not
>: >: >science, but a religion.
>: >:
>: >: Science works with facts. The fossil record contains a lot of facts.
>: >
>: > The only fact is they have remains of individual
>: >creatures that once lived. They tacked onto it a ton of beliefs
>: >about their fish to man version of evolutoin as to what the
>: >creature supposedly evolved from or to, assuming their beliefs
>: >are even true about fish to man evolution - all beliefs that are
>: >not observable AND not testable/verifiable.
>:
>: The point is that the process IS observable - through the fossil
>: record.
>
> Wrong. Observable is showing in real time observations
>and/or tests/verification of such a thing actually happening.
No it is not. That is a VERY limited type of observation.
>Not
>looking at dead bones and fossils, and saying whatever belief
>they ascribe to it is suddenly an observation of said belief.
The observation is of the fossils, their place in the rock strata and
the changes over time in the form of the fossils showing evolution.
>That's wishful thinking at best, outright dishonesty at worse.
>
>: It is testable AND verifiable through genetics.
>
> No, that's circular reasoning,
No it is not.
> as they're going on the
>assumption that common DNA is proof that they evolved from each
>other, and then showing common DNA as if now that proves it yet
>again. I'm sure if a banana and a human had similar DNA that they
>would have enough common sense to avoid the conclusion that "we
>must have evolved from bananas!".
We both evolved from a common ancestor.
>
>:
>: And, of course, the real problem you have is that you have no
>: alternative to offer.
>
> Two serious problems. First of all, "no alternative" does
>not make the only "believed" alternative truth.
It does add great weight to it being true.
> That's "Argument
>from ignorance" (look it up).
No, it is not.
> Using that logic, the belief that
>meat and air creates life would have been dubbed scientific fact
>until someone was *willing* to accept an alternative.
No, because nobody did the science.
>
> Second of all, we do have an alternative: common designer
>(of which we believe that common designer is God, but if it makes
>them feel better, they can assume its some sort of alien from
>another planet, so they can rest their heads at night in
>unaccountable bliss).
Then construct a scientific theory on that basis and put it forward.
>But origin "scientists" **refuse** to
>consider the possibility of God.
Until there is evidence to consider science cannot look at it.
>Ironic, since all the evidence
>they hold so dear points many times more logically to God and Him
>doing everything He said He did.
But you forget one basic fact. There is no evidence that is more
logically explained by a god figure. We know that gods are the
invention of primitive man, that really is all there is to say about
gods.
>
>Creation
>www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
>
>Fossils
>www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
>
>Age/Dating methods
>www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
>www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
>
>www.creationontheweb.com
>www.icr.org
Try finding links that are to proper science.
--
Bob.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
What does evolutionary theory (not) claim, hmmmmm?
Gregory A Greenman
Actually, I'll have to give you some credit here. That does make
sense that god would reuse his design and so different species
would have similar DNA if they had similar needs. So, shark DNA is
closer to tuna DNA than to elephant DNA, not because of evolution,
but because sharks and tuna both live in the ocean, so god, in his
infinite wisdom saw they needed gills, so they got similar DNA to
give them the gills they need. Likewise, eagles and sparrows have
similar DNA, because they both need wings, not because of any
mythical common ancestor.
Another example, whales, like sharks and tuna, live in the ocean,
so their DNA is more similar to their fellow ocean dwellers than
to, say, lions, because they need gills to breathe. I mean, without
gills, they'd have to surface to breathe and they'd have to be
really good at holding their breath. What kind of designer would
force them to have to do that?
Further, penguin DNA is close to that of seals and otters because
they have similar needs - living partly in water, partly out. You
certainly wouldn't expect penguin DNA to be closer to sparrows or
eagles. That'd be silly. Penguins don't fly. So there'd be no point
in the creator using bird DNA in them. Why can't evolutionists
accept these obvious facts?
Gabriel
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
: On Dec 18, 11:26 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:34:46 -0800 (PST),
: > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
: >
: > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : On Nov 22, 2:41 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:47 -0800 (PST), wf3h
: > : >: > <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
: >
: > :
: > : > :
: > : > : it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
: > : > : student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
: > : > : MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
: > : > : of evolution
: > : >
: > : > Populations of bacteria producing, over generations, more
: > : > bacteria that might be different but still bacteria is not the
: > : > fish to man version of evolution you believe in - it's adaptation
: > : > that we already know takes place.
: > :
: > : Well, the scientists who actually *study* such things will tell you
: > : that it's evolution.
: >
: > Yes, adaptation.
:
: Well, the scientists who actually *study* the subject call it
: evolution.
: What do you know that all those scientists don't?
No, it's the imagined version of evolution that fish can
evolve over generations into human beings that is wrong. To claim
that's the same thing as a dog evolving to grow more hair to
adapt to colder climate is confusion at best, dishonesty at
worse.
:
:
: > It's not a sample of the imagined fish
: > to man _version_ of evolution until they show populations of
: > bacteria producing organisms, over generations, that are clearly
: > no longer bacteria at all.
:
: There is only one "version" of evolution.
Wrong. We already know bacteria evolves, but remain
bacteria. Dogs evolve, but remain dogs, and so on. Observable,
testable, and verifiable. Also called "micro-evolution". By sharp
contrast, the fish to man version of evolution claims the science
fiction belief that dogs will evolve, over generations, into
animals that are clearly no longer dogs at all. Sometimes dubbed
"macro-evolution". Such a "fish to man" version of evolution is
not observable, not testable, not verifiable. Not science.
Thanks for posting.
Ye Old One
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The only thing wrong is you. We have the fossil record and genetics,
both prove man evolved and that rather a long time ago one of our
ancestors was a fish.
> To claim
>that's the same thing as a dog evolving to grow more hair to
>adapt to colder climate is confusion at best, dishonesty at
>worse.
>
>:
>:
>: > It's not a sample of the imagined fish
>: > to man _version_ of evolution until they show populations of
>: > bacteria producing organisms, over generations, that are clearly
>: > no longer bacteria at all.
>:
>: There is only one "version" of evolution.
>
> Wrong. We already know bacteria evolves, but remain
>bacteria.
But not the same species.
> Dogs evolve, but remain dogs, and so on.
Dogs have been evolving for millions of years, there was a time when
they were not dogs and there will be a time in the future when they
are not dogs.
> Observable,
>testable, and verifiable. Also called "micro-evolution". By sharp
>contrast, the fish to man version of evolution claims the science
>fiction belief that dogs will evolve, over generations, into
>animals that are clearly no longer dogs at all.
Correct.
> Sometimes dubbed
>"macro-evolution". Such a "fish to man" version of evolution is
>not observable, not testable, not verifiable.
And yet it is observed, is tested and is verified.
> Not science.
Bloody good science.
>
> Thanks for posting.
We wish you would stop.
--
Bob.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:20:49 -0800 (PST),
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> : On Dec 18, 11:26 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:34:46 -0800 (PST),
> : > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> : >: > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : On Nov 22, 2:41 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > : > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:47 -0800 (PST), wf3h
> : > : >: > <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > :
> : > : > :
> : > : > : it's testable. i know from personal experience. i was a nursing
> : > : > : student at one point and our instructors got us paranoid about
> : > : > : MRSA...an evolutionary change in bacteria. that's a testable outcome
> : > : > : of evolution
> : > : >
> : > : > Populations of bacteria producing, over generations, more
> : > : > bacteria that might be different but still bacteria is not the
> : > : > fish to man version of evolution you believe in - it's adaptation
> : > : > that we already know takes place.
> : > :
> : > : Well, the scientists who actually *study* such things will tell you
> : > : that it's evolution.
> : >
> : > Yes, adaptation.
> :
> : Well, the scientists who actually *study* the subject call it
> : evolution.
> : What do you know that all those scientists don't?
>
> No, it's the imagined version of evolution that fish can
> evolve over generations into human beings that is wrong.
To repeat the question:
The scientists who actually *study* the subject call it evolution.
What do you know that they don't?
> To claim
> that's the same thing as a dog evolving to grow more hair to
> adapt to colder climate is confusion at best, dishonesty at
> worse.
No, it's not. It's simply following the evidence where it leads.
What *is* stupid is to claim that all those scientists are wrong, and
that what *they* call evolution is something other than evolution.
They coined the term to describe the process. How on earth can they be
wrong?
What is dishonest is to continue to repeat the same silly assertion
when this has been pointed out to you. However, I have no expectation
whatsoever that you will stop making this ludicrous and dishonest
claim, because as a creationist you are wedded to a doctrine which is
inherently ludicrous and dishones.
>
> :
> :
> : > It's not a sample of the imagined fish
> : > to man _version_ of evolution until they show populations of
> : > bacteria producing organisms, over generations, that are clearly
> : > no longer bacteria at all.
> :
> : There is only one "version" of evolution.
>
> Wrong.
Well, the scientists who actually *study* the subject disagree with
you.
What do you know that they don't?
>We already know bacteria evolves, but remain
> bacteria. Dogs evolve, but remain dogs, and so on.
To repeat:
This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts!
I've pointed this out to you before, but you simply carry on repeating
the same assertion as if it were significant.
If dogs produced something which is clearly *not* dogs, it would
*FALSIFY* evolutionary theory.
> Observable,
> testable, and verifiable.
Which is what evolution is.
>Also called "micro-evolution".
It's also called "macroevolution". The only difference is the scales
at which evolution is studied. Evolution at both scales has been
observed in nature and replicated in the laboratory.
>By sharp
> contrast, the fish to man version of evolution claims the science
> fiction belief that dogs will evolve, over generations, into
> animals that are clearly no longer dogs at all.
Once again: no, it doesn't. It predicts that dogs will evolve over
generations into animals which are still clearly dogs. but which have
acquired new characters and lost others.
> Sometimes dubbed
> "macro-evolution".
Nonsense. Macroevolution is evolution at the level of speciation and
above. It has been observed in nature and replicated in the
laboratory. It happens. LIve with that fact.
> Such a "fish to man" version of evolution is
> not observable, not testable, not verifiable. Not science.
>
> Thanks for posting.
Why thank me if you don't read my responses?
Mind you, I'm perfectly happy to carry on posting. After all, what you
are doing is demonstrating the ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty of
creationism - and the reason I post here is to expose the ignorance,
stupidity and dishonesty of creationism.
Thanks for you help.
RF
wf3h
>
> Wrong. We already know bacteria evolves, but remain
> bacteria. Dogs evolve, but remain dogs, and so on. Observable,
> testable, and verifiable.
so is evolution. it makes predictions, like the existence of a nested
hierarchy of life. and that's observed. so, yes, evolution is
observable and verfiable
Also called "micro-evolution". By sharp
> contrast, the fish to man version of evolution claims the science
> fiction belief that dogs will evolve, over generations, into
> animals that are clearly no longer dogs at all. Sometimes dubbed
> "macro-evolution". Such a "fish to man" version of evolution is
> not observable, not testable, not verifiable. Not science.
>
the fossil record is observed and it verfies evolution. so we
scientists consider evolution science
1. it has a mechanism
2. it makes predictions
3 these predictions are confirmed by observation
therefore evolution is science
chris thompson
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:20:49 -0800 (PST),
Why is it wrong? Because you say so> Because it makes you feel not-
special?
What evidence do you have that there's some barrier to this process?
What is there to prevent fish from becoming humans? Please provide
references from reputable scientific sources.
Chris
TomS
<ecb82636-4425-4ff5...@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, chris
thompson stated..."
>
>On Jan 9, 11:25=A0pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:20:49 -0800 (PST),
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Wrong. We already know bacteria evolves, but remain
>> bacteria. Dogs evolve, but remain dogs, and so on. Observable,
>> testable, and verifiable. Also called "micro-evolution". By sharp
>> contrast, the fish to man version of evolution claims the science
>> animals that are clearly no longer dogs at all. Sometimes dubbed
>> "macro-evolution". Such a "fish to man" version of evolution is
>> not observable, not testable, not verifiable. Not science.
>>
>
>Why is it wrong? Because you say so> Because it makes you feel not-
>special?
>
>What evidence do you have that there's some barrier to this process?
>What is there to prevent fish from becoming humans? Please provide
>references from reputable scientific sources.
>
>Chris
>
There is such a vast amount of evidence that evolution occurs to
the extent that at least new species can evolve that even many
creationists will admit that.
The creationists who admit that there is no barrier to the
natural origin of species speak of a barrier at "kinds" (or
"baramins"). However, there is no objective category of living
things which is larger than species (short of "the whole of
the world of life"). Genus, family, and so on have no uniform
description throughout various branches of the tree of life,
but are mosty terms of convenience. The creationists haven't
been very helpful in saying what a "kind" might be, although
"something like a taxonomic family" seems to be popular. That
would allow "micro-evolution" throughout the dog family (the
Canidae). (BTW, check the Wikipedia article Canidae for a survey
of the fossil record of transitional forms in the dog family.
There is a recent book which is of interest: Xiaoming Wang,
Richard H. Tedford, Mauricio Antón, "Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives
and Evolutionary History", New York: Columbia University Press,
2008.)
Allowing that "they're still bacteria", that would allow quite
a scope for "micro-evolution" - eubacteria are a whole domain
of life. Think of saying "they're still eukaryotes" when
comparing dandelions and lions.
If we restrict "micro-evolution" to evolution within a family,
then consider the family Hominidae. Hominidae include chimps,
gorillas, orangs, and humans, and, of course, such fossils as
Australopithecus species and Homo species (H. erectus, H.
neanderthalensis, and so on).
To posit a barrier between "kinds" is to posit something which
does not even have a description, much less any reason to
believe in its reality: no evidence, no theory, no idea of
where the barrier might fall or what it might consist of or
how it might operate. Once the "species barrier" is broken, as
is generally conceeded by creationists, what is left other than
an "ad hoc" device?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Gabriel
wrote:
: "On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:14:01 -0800 (PST), in article
The barriers are very real, as much so as the obvious
barrier between man and fish. This imagined belief that fish
cross numerous barriers to evolve, over generations, into human
beings is a version of evolution that is not observable, not
testable, and not verifiable - it is something that can only be
taken on faith - it is something that can only be believed in. It
is not science, just another religious belief on what people want
to believe happened in the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable
past.
: no evidence, no theory, no idea of
: where the barrier might fall or what it might consist of or
: how it might operate. Once the "species barrier" is broken, as
: is generally conceeded by creationists, what is left other than
: an "ad hoc" device?
Show a single observation and/or test/verification of
this barrier actually being broken. For examples, populations of
what we call rats producing, over generations, animals that are
clearly no longer rats at all. Science can repeatedly show
observations, tests AND verifications of all the barriers - rats
producing only rats, and so on. To claim those barriers don't
exist is confusion at best, outright dishonest at worst - like
trying to claim you, a human being, are actually a fish, because
you want to claim not believing there are barriers actually means
there are none.
Thanks for posting.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On 10 Jan 2009 06:59:03 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
...
>: To posit a barrier between "kinds" is to posit something which
>: does not even have a description, much less any reason to
>: believe in its reality:
>
> The barriers are very real, as much so as the obvious
>barrier between man and fish.
Aside from the evidence that humans are descendants of some sort of
fish, what exactly are you claiming?
>This imagined belief that fish
>cross numerous barriers to evolve, over generations, into human
>beings is a version of evolution that is not observable, not
>testable, and not verifiable - it is something that can only be
>taken on faith - it is something that can only be believed in. It
>is not science, just another religious belief on what people want
>to believe happened in the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable
>past.
Once more, you wave your hands and make assertions that aren't
consistent with the evidence. Why? Who gave you the right to cherrypick
the data and ignore everything that doesn't fit with your dogma?
>: no evidence, no theory, no idea of
>: where the barrier might fall or what it might consist of or
>: how it might operate. Once the "species barrier" is broken, as
>: is generally conceeded by creationists, what is left other than
>: an "ad hoc" device?
>
> Show a single observation and/or test/verification of
>this barrier actually being broken.
Describe the barrier and show us what the mechanism is. Until you do
that, we have no way to show that you are either right or wrong since
all you have is a magical incantation at the moment. When you apply it
in a testable scientific proposition, then, and only then, will you be
trying to do science.
>For examples, populations of
>what we call rats producing, over generations, animals that are
>clearly no longer rats at all. Science can repeatedly show
>observations, tests AND verifications of all the barriers - rats
>producing only rats, and so on. To claim those barriers don't
>exist is confusion at best, outright dishonest at worst - like
>trying to claim you, a human being, are actually a fish, because
>you want to claim not believing there are barriers actually means
>there are none.
Once again, you try to argue without history. What gives you the right
to dismiss all of the evidence about the _history_ of life on earth?
> Thanks for posting.
I'll thank you when you show that you actually care about reality.
TomS
<ubqhm4ltl0s8563md...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch stated..."
>
>On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:58:04 -0500, Gabriel
><gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>>On 10 Jan 2009 06:59:03 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>
>...
>
>>: To posit a barrier between "kinds" is to posit something which
>>: does not even have a description, much less any reason to
>>: believe in its reality:
>>
>> The barriers are very real, as much so as the obvious
>>barrier between man and fish.
>
>Aside from the evidence that humans are descendants of some sort of
>fish, what exactly are you claiming?
It's supposed to be *obvious*.
Like it's obvious that the earth is a flat disk that the sun goes
around daily.
Well, no, not quite that kind of obvious. After all, saying that the
earth is flat is actually asserting something.
Saying that there is a mysterious barrier somewhere is a lot more
vague than that. We don't know what sort of barrier it is. We don't
know where it is.
It's obvious like, "Don't ask."
wf3h
>
> The barriers are very real, as much so as the obvious
> barrier between man and fish. This imagined belief that fish
> cross numerous barriers to evolve, over generations, into human
> beings is a version of evolution that is not observable,
it's observable in the fossil record. so your statement is wrong
> not
> testable, and not verifiable -
the mechanism is testable and verifiable..and it has been tested and
verified.
it is something that can only be
> taken on faith - it is something that can only be believed in. It
> is not science, just another religious belief on what people want
> to believe happened in the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable
> past.
only if you think that what happened in the past is based on laws that
have changed with time. and if you believe that, then your god is
based on magic, not science
>
> : no evidence, no theory, no idea of
> : where the barrier might fall or what it might consist of or
> : how it might operate. Once the "species barrier" is broken, as
> : is generally conceeded by creationists, what is left other than
> : an "ad hoc" device?
>
> Show a single observation and/or test/verification of
> this barrier actually being broken.
the evolution of whales. the evolution of the horse...
For examples, populations of
> what we call rats producing, over generations, animals that are
> clearly no longer rats at all. Science can repeatedly show
> observations, tests AND verifications of all the barriers - rats
> producing only rats, and so on. To claim those barriers don't
> exist is confusion at best, outright dishonest at worst - like
> trying to claim you, a human being, are actually a fish, because
> you want to claim not believing there are barriers actually means
> there are none.
the prediction of evolution is that major changes take time. and that
prediction is also verfied. thus evolution is science
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 10 Jan 2009 06:59:03 -0800, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> : "On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:14:01 -0800 (PST), in article
If the "barriers" are "very real", you should be able to cite a
scientific publication which describes the evidence on which this
assertion is based.
If you can't, it's an unsupported assertion.
>This imagined belief that fish
> cross numerous barriers to evolve, over generations, into human
> beings is a version of evolution that is not observable, not
> testable, and not verifiable - it is something that can only be
> taken on faith - it is something that can only be believed in.
So, where are these "numerous barriers" to be found? Where is the
evidence on which you base this assertion?
> It
> is not science, just another religious belief on what people want
> to believe happened in the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable
> past.
Bullshit. It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence, and tested by the
acquisition of further evidence. There is a huge scientific literature
on the subject.
>
> : no evidence, no theory, no idea of
> : where the barrier might fall or what it might consist of or
> : how it might operate. Once the "species barrier" is broken, as
> : is generally conceeded by creationists, what is left other than
> : an "ad hoc" device?
>
> Show a single observation and/or test/verification of
> this barrier actually being broken.
How on earth can anyone demonstrate that a barrier has been broken
when there is no evidence that such a barrier exists?
> For examples, populations of
> what we call rats producing, over generations, animals that are
> clearly no longer rats at all.
How many times do I need to repeat this:
*IF* rats produced over generations, animals which are no longer
clearly rats it would *FALSIFY* evolutionary theory!
I know that there is little point in suggesting that you actually
*learn* something about the theory you claim to critique, but surely
it is the height of stupidity to repeat this demand when it has been
explained to you that not only is it something not predicted by
evolutionary theory, but which, if observed, would actually *FALSIFY*
evolutionary theory?
> Science can repeatedly show
> observations, tests AND verifications of all the barriers - rats
> producing only rats, and so on.
So where has this work been published?
I'm an vertebrate palaeontolgist, and suggest that I know the
scientific literature on evolutionary theory rather better than you
do. I know of no such barrier to evolution in any scientific
publication.
If you can't produce *any* citation to support this assertion that
these "barriers" exist, why on earth should anyone take your word for
it that such barriers exist?
> To claim those barriers don't
> exist is confusion at best, outright dishonest at worst
As you have not provided one scrap of evidence that any such barriers
exist, and no biologist has published any scientific publication which
supports the existence of such barriers, the dishonesty is very
clearly yours.
Or do you think that it is honest to make things up as you go along to
suit your argument?
> - like
> trying to claim you, a human being, are actually a fish, because
> you want to claim not believing there are barriers actually means
> there are none.
If you think human beings are *not* highly derived fish, I suggest
that you address the evidence in comparitive anatomy, genetics,
morphology, biochemistry and the fossil record which supports that
conclusion.
Simply denying it gets you nowhere unless you *want* to look ignorant
and dishonest.
>
> Thanks for posting.
Why thank anyone for posting when it is clear that you don't bother to
read what has been posted?
On the other hand, I post here to expose the ignorance, stupidity and
dishonesty of creationists. Thank you for your excellent contribution
to the cause.
RF
TomS
<ef6bd6f9-0d4f-4270...@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
richardal...@googlemail.com stated..."
>
>On Jan 10, 5:58=A0pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2009 06:59:03 -0800, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>> : To posit a barrier between "kinds" is to posit something which
>> : does not even have a description, much less any reason to
>> : believe in its reality:
>>
>> barrier between man and fish.
>
>If the "barriers" are "very real", you should be able to cite a
>scientific publication which describes the evidence on which this
>assertion is based.
>
>If you can't, it's an unsupported assertion.
Gabriel made a mistake which the more sophisticated anti-evolutionists
have learned to avoid. They have learned to avoid having even the
appearance of something positive to say. Gabriel made the mistake of
referring to a "barrier", as if there were some real thing, or at
least a real concept - a barrier. Of course, one immediately wonders
where this barrier might be in the transition between aquatic
vertebrates and land vertebrates, and what sort of thing this barrier
might be.
And any such specification poses a problem for a creationist.
To specify where in the transition from fins to legs, for example,
something can't exist poses a definite problem - if something *does*
exist, then the "barrier" is broken.
To specify what constitutes the barrier to a transition just begs
for someone to point out how biochemistry or genetics demonstrates
that there is no such barrier.
Myself, I like to point out that in the development of certain
individuals transitions do take place. If there really were
barriers to the evolution of legs from fins, why wouldn't there
be barriers to the development of legs from fins in the transition
from tadpole to frog? (Of course, evolution in a population is
something different from development in an individual. The analogy
isn't perfect.)
As long as creationists can get away with vague waves of the hand
like obvious barriers between fish and humans, then they're
safe.
But if we can embarrass them into making the mistake of offering
a positive statement, something that can be examined or tested,
then they're going to fail.
chris thompson
> On 10 Jan 2009 06:59:03 -0800, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> : "On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:14:01 -0800 (PST), in article
There is no obvious barrier between humans and fish. We have more in
common with fish than we have with most other organisms on the planet.
I know that doesn't seem reasonable to you, but to put it baldly, your
lack of knowledge on this topic has no bearing on its truth.
> This imagined belief that fish
> cross numerous barriers to evolve, over generations, into human
> beings is a version of evolution that is not observable, not
> testable, and not verifiable - it is something that can only be
> taken on faith - it is something that can only be believed in.
And it is not posited by anyone. No one is suggesting, as you seem to
present here, that fish evolved directly into humans. Your deliberate
mis-phrasing of this, on occasions too numerous to count, points to a
level of dishonesty most people find distressing, but common in
creationists. Why not present evolution as scientists present it? Does
it sound too reasonable then?
> It is not science, just another religious belief on what people want
> to believe happened in the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable
> past.
You are correct that events of the distant past can never be
recreated. However, those events leave physical evidence that can be
observed. Hypotheses consistent with the characteristics of those
remnants can be generated, and tested against subsequent discoveries.
That's how science works, you know.
As to unverifiable, you demand a standard of proof from evolutionary
theory that is unreasonable. It is also hypocritical: do you believe
that stars never turn into supernovae? You do know we've never
observed that, right? Every nova ever seen happened in the distant,
unverifiable past. What do you make of pretty much all of astronomy?
Are the only valid astronomical observations those from our solar
system, i.e., those observed in real time? What about geology? (I know
your answer here but I ask anyway.) Do the events we see preserved in
rock strata man nothing?
> : no evidence, no theory, no idea of
> : where the barrier might fall or what it might consist of or
> : how it might operate. Once the "species barrier" is broken, as
> : is generally conceeded by creationists, what is left other than
> : an "ad hoc" device?
>
> Show a single observation and/or test/verification of
> this barrier actually being broken. For examples, populations of
> what we call rats producing, over generations, animals that are
> clearly no longer rats at all. Science can repeatedly show
> observations, tests AND verifications of all the barriers - rats
> producing only rats, and so on. To claim those barriers don't
> exist is confusion at best, outright dishonest at worst - like
> trying to claim you, a human being, are actually a fish, because
> you want to claim not believing there are barriers actually means
> there are none.
The dishonesty is yours. No such barrier has ever been posited by
anyone except creationists. You create this barrier out of
desperation, knowing full well no scientist accepts it. But there are
ramifications, as I pointed out. Do you deny the existence of anything
that happened more than, say, 4000 years ago? We have no observations
of anything before that, you know- including creation.
Chris
>
> Thanks for posting.
Gabriel
wrote:
: On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:23:32 -0500, Gabriel
: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:40:09 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
: >wrote:
: >
: >: On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:09:18 -0500, Gabriel
: >: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
: >:
: >: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:02:58 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
: >: >wrote:
: >: >
: >: >: On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, Gabriel
: >: >: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
: >: >:
: >: >: >In the meantime, they have no observations, no
: >: >: >tests/verifications that populations of mammals can produce, over
: >: >: >generations, birds.
: >: >:
: >: >: Well of course not. However, we can trace mammals and birds back to a
: >: >: common ancestor.
: >: >
: >: > No, the "tracing" is a belief that is unobservable AND
: >: >untestable/unverifiable - only to be taken on faith.
: >:
: >: If, and I say *IF*, we only had the fossil record to go by then maybe
: >: I would agree with you. However, the fossil record is not all that we
: >: have. There are many other avenues, though the best is comparative
: >: genetics - with that we can say (without fear of contradiction) that
: >: we can trace mammals and birds back to a common ancestor.
: >
: > Those avenues point more logically to God.
:
: No they do not. All gods, including yours, were invented by man.
Please back up this claim with an irrefutable proof that
the God of the Bible was made up by men and really does not
exist, proving that Jesus never rose from the dead, that none of
the miracles that He and later His disciples did never happened,
and that no miracles happen every day that defy logical
explanation.
Meanwhile I can use logic to *prove* there's a creator
(whether you want to believe it's God or an alien from another
planet). We'd be foolish to think a building could "just happen"
if you give it 100 billion years, 100 trillion, or more years -
add time and it will not matter. **No one** would deny that logic
(who had a working mind). But then many people suddenly
contradict, abandon, and completely forget about that logic and
assume something infinitely more complex than a mere building can
just happen "by chance", if only you just would give it millions
and billions of years. It is undeniable logic that there is an
intelligent creator.
Now, if you want to believe that creator is an alien from
another planet, I suppose that's the part we'll have to take on
faith as to who the true creator is. But being we have the bible,
as shown by recent dead sea scrolls to be accurate, hundreds of
prophecies fulfilled hundreds of years later, the life of Jesus
Christ, miracles we even see today, the miraculously changed
lives of those who come to Christ, and that's just for starters,
having faith in the God of the Bible, and His Son, Jesus Christ,
is trivial compared to having faith in an alien. But the truth of
an intelligent creator is logically undeniable for those who are
willing to think about it. Those who refuse to think about it
objectively are clearly not free thinkers, slaves to the
religious belief that there cannot possibly be a God (that I'd
accountable to, no less).
Meanwhile more evidence was given - but unfortunately you
just want to say "there is no evidence" as if that makes the
evidence any less real. And even the fossil record: Cambrian
explosion. More irrefutable proof of a designer, a creator, even
if you refuse to consider that it's God. Not to mention more
proof that evolution is flat out wrong, as it completely
contradicts their beliefs
Thanks for posting.
wf3h
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:16:59 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
> :
> : No they do not. All gods, including yours, were invented by man.
>
> Please back up this claim with an irrefutable proof that
> the God of the Bible was made up by men and really does not
> exist, proving that Jesus never rose from the dead, that none of
> the miracles that He and later His disciples did never happened,
> and that no miracles happen every day that defy logical
> explanation.
your logic is all screwed up. it's up to you to prove he did, not up
to anyone else to prove he didn't.
>
> Meanwhile I can use logic to *prove* there's a creator
> (whether you want to believe it's God or an alien from another
> planet). We'd be foolish to think a building could "just happen"
> if you give it 100 billion years,
well, then we're foolish because that's what the evidence shows, so to
speak. the fact is, no matter what you believe, if it contradicts the
evidence, then your belief is wrong
evolution is a fact. your belief in biblical literalism is, therefore,
wrong.
100 trillion, or more years -
> add time and it will not matter. **No one** would deny that logic
> (who had a working mind). But then many people suddenly
> contradict, abandon, and completely forget about that logic and
> assume something infinitely more complex than a mere building can
> just happen "by chance", if only you just would give it millions
> and billions of years. It is undeniable logic that there is an
> intelligent creator.
it's undeniable logic that that is not what's seen...actually
seen...in nature. evolution is observed. god is not.
>
> Now, if you want to believe that creator is an alien from
> another planet, I suppose that's the part we'll have to take on
> faith as to who the true creator is. But being we have the bible,
> as shown by recent dead sea scrolls to be accurate,
thucydides is accurate. does that make him god? the NY times and the
washington post are, within reason, 'accurate'. does that make their
editors god?
it's an error of logic to say that god exists because the bible has
some accuracy to it. you can make that case for ANY document that
contains history.
hundreds of
> prophecies fulfilled hundreds of years later,
prophesies are what you make them. it's ridiculous to pretend biblical
prophesies are fulfilled when those who reported they were had an
interest in reporting that they were.
the life of Jesus
> Christ, miracles we even see today, the miraculously changed
> lives of those who come to Christ,
the same can be said of mohammed, buddha, shiva, etc.it's the job of
gods to change lives. any god can do it.
and that's just for starters,
> having faith in the God of the Bible, and His Son, Jesus Christ,
> is trivial compared to having faith in an alien. But the truth of
> an intelligent creator is logically undeniable for those who are
> willing to think about it. Those who refuse to think about it
> objectively are clearly not free thinkers, slaves to the
> religious belief that there cannot possibly be a God (that I'd
> accountable to, no less).
evolution is a fact. how you square it with your god is irrelevant.
>
> Meanwhile more evidence was given - but unfortunately you
> just want to say "there is no evidence" as if that makes the
> evidence any less real. And even the fossil record: Cambrian
> explosion. More irrefutable proof of a designer, a creator, even
> if you refuse to consider that it's God. Not to mention more
> proof that evolution is flat out wrong, as it completely
> contradicts their beliefs
>
the cambrian explosion happened over tens of millions of years. and it
shows evolution. which contradicts what you just said.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
You know the question.
Run NOW.
Ye Old One
Man is, at the moment, the only creature on this planet that is able
to "invent" things. There are hundreds and thousands of gods that have
been invented by mad over the years. Yours is no different in any way
from any of the others.
As to the JC character, nobody has ever been able to come up with any
evidence he ever existed, not a single scrap. Don't you find that
strange?
>
>
> Meanwhile I can use logic to *prove* there's a creator
>(whether you want to believe it's God or an alien from another
>planet).
You could try - but far better than you have failed over the years.
> We'd be foolish to think a building could "just happen"
>if you give it 100 billion years, 100 trillion, or more years -
>add time and it will not matter. **No one** would deny that logic
>(who had a working mind).
Define a "building"? If you are talking of a house, then that is an
artificial construction.
> But then many people suddenly
>contradict, abandon, and completely forget about that logic and
>assume something infinitely more complex than a mere building can
>just happen "by chance", if only you just would give it millions
>and billions of years. It is undeniable logic that there is an
>intelligent creator.
Rubbish. Life started VERY simple, it may have taken millions of years
for the first true cell to develop but that cell came as the result of
evolution.
>
> Now, if you want to believe that creator is an alien from
>another planet, I suppose that's the part we'll have to take on
>faith as to who the true creator is. But being we have the bible,
>as shown by recent dead sea scrolls to be accurate,
Don't be daft. The DSSs date between 150 BC to 70 AD.
>hundreds of
>prophecies fulfilled hundreds of years later,
Oh? You must be nuts to believe that.
>the life of Jesus
>Christ,
Ah! Matthew takes a beating on that score. Added to the fact that the
OT is Jewish text, they do not recognize your JC as the fulfillment of
OT prophecies - so the real experts disagree with you.
> miracles we even see today, the miraculously changed
>lives of those who come to Christ, and that's just for starters,
It is not even remotely a start - it is laughable.
>having faith in the God of the Bible, and His Son, Jesus Christ,
>is trivial compared to having faith in an alien. But the truth of
>an intelligent creator is logically undeniable for those who are
>willing to think about it.
And for those that really think about it the whole idea of a creator
is pure fiction.
> Those who refuse to think about it
>objectively are clearly not free thinkers, slaves to the
>religious belief that there cannot possibly be a God (that I'd
>accountable to, no less).
>
> Meanwhile more evidence was given - but unfortunately you
>just want to say "there is no evidence"
I've never seen any.
> as if that makes the
>evidence any less real. And even the fossil record: Cambrian
>explosion.
Millions of years of evolution.
> More irrefutable proof of a designer, a creator, even
>if you refuse to consider that it's God. Not to mention more
>proof that evolution is flat out wrong, as it completely
>contradicts their beliefs
Evolution is a fact. You will have to learn to live with it.
Gregory A Greenman
> Meanwhile I can use logic to *prove* there's a creator
> (whether you want to believe it's God or an alien from another
> planet). We'd be foolish to think a building could "just happen"
> if you give it 100 billion years, 100 trillion, or more years -
> add time and it will not matter. **No one** would deny that logic
> (who had a working mind). But then many people suddenly
> contradict, abandon, and completely forget about that logic and
> assume something infinitely more complex than a mere building can
> just happen "by chance", if only you just would give it millions
> and billions of years. It is undeniable logic that there is an
> intelligent creator.
Let's see if I understand your logic.
A building is too complex to have come about in the absence of a
creator. Anything that's more complex will also require a creator,
obviously. Gods are more complex than buildings. Buildings were
created, therefore the various gods must have been as well. And, of
course, buildings are built by humans. It would be silly to suggest
that the gods were created by aliens from outer space; they were
created by humans as well.
I'm surprised you gave such a strongly pro-atheist argument. Maybe
I've misjudged you.
Lee Jay
> Meanwhile I can use logic to *prove* there's a creator
> (whether you want to believe it's God or an alien from another
> planet). We'd be foolish to think a building could "just happen"
> if you give it 100 billion years, 100 trillion, or more years -
> add time and it will not matter. **No one** would deny that logic
> (who had a working mind). But then many people suddenly
> contradict, abandon, and completely forget about that logic and
> assume something infinitely more complex than a mere building can
> just happen "by chance", if only you just would give it millions
> and billions of years. It is undeniable logic that there is an
> intelligent creator.
Ah, creationist logic. Right up there with "rap music" in the
oxymoron category.
Have you ever seen buildings self-reproduce with imperfect heredity
the way life does, and with differential reproductive success? Didn't
think so. Bang - your "logic" has been blown out of the water by a
thermonuclear weapon (though, a rubber band gun would have done just
as well).
Lee Jay
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 19, 2:02 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Meanwhile I can use logic to *prove* there's a creator
>> (whether you want to believe it's God or an alien from another
>> planet). We'd be foolish to think a building could "just happen"
>> if you give it 100 billion years, 100 trillion, or more years -
>> add time and it will not matter. **No one** would deny that logic
>> (who had a working mind). But then many people suddenly
>> contradict, abandon, and completely forget about that logic and
>> assume something infinitely more complex than a mere building can
>> just happen "by chance", if only you just would give it millions
>> and billions of years. It is undeniable logic that there is an
>> intelligent creator.
>
>Ah, creationist logic. Right up there with "rap music" in the
>oxymoron category.
I cannot help you with Gabriel's inability to think or write in a
rational manner, but I can help you with your second question. The music
is hip-hop, the speech over the music is rap.
John Baker
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:42:05 -0800 (PST), Lee Jay <ljfi...@msn.com>
>wrote in talk.origins:
>
>>On Jan 19, 2:02 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Meanwhile I can use logic to *prove* there's a creator
>>> (whether you want to believe it's God or an alien from another
>>> planet). We'd be foolish to think a building could "just happen"
>>> if you give it 100 billion years, 100 trillion, or more years -
>>> add time and it will not matter. **No one** would deny that logic
>>> (who had a working mind). But then many people suddenly
>>> contradict, abandon, and completely forget about that logic and
>>> assume something infinitely more complex than a mere building can
>>> just happen "by chance", if only you just would give it millions
>>> and billions of years. It is undeniable logic that there is an
>>> intelligent creator.
>>
>>Ah, creationist logic. Right up there with "rap music" in the
>>oxymoron category.
>
>I cannot help you with Gabriel's inability to think or write in a
>rational manner, but I can help you with your second question. The music
>is hip-hop, the speech over the music is rap.
In either case, describing the resulting cacophony as "music" is a bit
of an exaggeration. <G>
Wombat
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:49:56 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >>On Jan 19, 2:02 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Meanwhile I can use logic to *prove* there's a creator
> >>> (whether you want to believe it's God or an alien from another
> >>> planet). We'd be foolish to think a building could "just happen"
> >>> if you give it 100 billion years, 100 trillion, or more years -
> >>> add time and it will not matter. **No one** would deny that logic
> >>> (who had a working mind). But then many people suddenly
> >>> contradict, abandon, and completely forget about that logic and
> >>> assume something infinitely more complex than a mere building can
> >>> just happen "by chance", if only you just would give it millions
> >>> and billions of years. It is undeniable logic that there is an
> >>> intelligent creator.
>
> >>Ah, creationist logic. Right up there with "rap music" in the
> >>oxymoron category.
>
> >I cannot help you with Gabriel's inability to think or write in a
> >rational manner, but I can help you with your second question. The music
> >is hip-hop, the speech over the music is rap.
>
> In either case, describing the resulting cacophony as "music" is a bit
> of an exaggeration. <G>
I once went to a talent show at my daughter's school. She did a song
by the group, Cradle of Filth. Two tried doing a rap song but one
forgot the words, another group lost the sound on their guitars half
way through the pop song and the eventual winner was a syrupy
rendition of a Frank Sinatra song. The judges were teachers, go
figure.
Wombat
Burkhard
Cradle of Filth in school talent show? Cool!
Wombat
Yes. She was only 15 at the time and, with Goth-style makeup, scared
some in the front row by leaning out at them while singing the song.
Wombat